A student once asked a college professor why music curriculum was steeped in the classics when music application upon graduation was mostly contemporary or popular oriented. The context of the question was related to churches but can be extended to the music industry. The professor gave an indirect example that served as both his philosophy and a justification of the curriculum. He said something to the effect that an architect studies the finest in architecture rather than how to build a gas station. He went on to posture that if an architect can build a cathedral or a museum or a mansion, then he can certainly build a gas station.
Aside from several weaknesses that occur when analogies are analyzed to specific detail, the attitude is likewise disdainful. The idea of exclusion and qualitative generalizations based on random subjectivity makes me uncomfortable, and I cannot entirely join my colleagues in criticizing the gas station and lifting up the highly regarded architectural design of a cathedral. I am so thankful for the cathedral but will admit to using the gas station much more frequently. Does this in and of itself make the gas station a lesser structure and partly due to infrequent usage, the cathedral greater? As a design becomes more utilitarian does it likewise become less artistic and therefore less worthy?
This does not mean that I equate all buildings as equal nor do I spend effort in studying the design of a gas station over that of a cathedral. It does mean, however, that I can respect the cathedral with its arches, domes, windows, etchings, furnishings, crosses, rooms, and purpose while also respecting the gas station with its underground holdings, pumps, rooms, garage, over-hangings, and store. Both structures require planning, design, a vision, implementation, coordinated efforts, tenacity, artistry, and funding. One is not "better" than the other but each is used for different purposes. If studied for artistic elements to include line, creativity, imagination, beauty, and form, one would readily conclude the cathedral to be superior. Yet if one were to study the structures for usefulness and purpose (spiritual elements aside), one might suggest the gas station to be superior to the cathedral in terms of practicality, footprint, functionality, perhaps even form.
We tend to judge art based on our own interests and concepts (thank you Emmanuel Kant!) and tend to rely on so-called experts in the field to tell us what to appreciate and what to reject. But I submit that each work should be considered on its own merits rather than quantitatively ranking it by subjective criteria for qualitative purposes. In doing so we may find value in the simple, treasures within the commonplace, joys in the concise, and deep expression in the mundane. Applying this process does not mitigate the idea of excellence but it does give acknowledgement and affirmation to human creative efforts. It also does not minimize the role of artistic preference but, instead, allows for multiplicity and pluralization of cognition. Rather than saying "that is quality" or that is "not quality," we are able to evaluate art on its own merits.
Having circumnavigated the issue at hand, let us return to the basic question. Should academia only teach the finest examples at the exclusion of the lesser ones? Or should we attempt to demonstrate the differences, providing tools for application of all kinds of art whether that be visually, musically, or theatrically? I believe it is time to embrace the totality of the arts world and provide education and training that encourages and supports both the gas station and the cathedral. How do you build a gas station? With materials, planning, and hard work!
Thursday, February 19, 2015
Monday, February 09, 2015
Symphony by Great Composer
Glorious and stunning are inadequate to describe the performance by the orchestra. Expressive beyond words and wildly cathartic, the performance hit on all cylinders and gave the audience a musical journey that was sublime and richly satisfying on all levels. The conductor and the players were perfectly in sync with each other and every dynamic change was felt collectively by the players and subsequently by the audience. The phrases connected to the whole and the orchestra seemed to grow as a unit with each measure ultimately creating an outstanding musical mosaic of joy and emotional bliss.
The 800 or so people present responded to the concert with a standing ovation and an extended applause. The talk on the way out was about the quality of the orchestra and how fortunate to have orchestra of such exceptional ability in the community. All was positive for almost everyone.
What could possibly be negative? After all, it was an incredible experience for the listeners, the players and the audience. The negative is in the $20,000 deficit that resulted from expenses being substantially greater than the revenues. Another way to express this is that the concert cost more in personnel costs than tickets sales generated. Not enough people came to the concert to offset the expenses. In most industries such a loss would cause restructuring, panic, layoffs, changes, talk of bankruptcy, or at the very least reductions in expenditures.
Many questions remain in this situation such as how could something so amazing cause such significant losses or how do fix this problem? Was it an anomaly? Did management simply spend too much? Or perhaps the problem was in marketing and publicity? Maybe had people been made aware of the remarkable musical and emotional experience they would have, they would have been more inclined to buy tickets and attend the concert. Perhaps an aggressive marketing blitz to include social media, newspapers, television, billboards, emails, flyers, mailouts, and posters would have encouraged support, demonstrating the excellence of the orchestra and "selling" people on the benefits of attending would have worked.
Or maybe it was one of those poorly selected nights where there were too many other events interfering with the orchestra concert, resulting in many disappointed people who were unable to attend due to a prior engagement. Yet somehow none of this rings true. The truth shines full in the light of the economics where the revenues are less than the expenses. For the orchestra to live on playing great music, it must find a way to increase revenues and/or decrease expenses. It is not a marketing problem, although that may be a small part of the solution. It is not a matter of choosing music by better composers nor improving the quality of the organization.
It is a matter of trying new approaches, new music, eclecticism, reaching a wider audience, using media, drums, guitars, entertainment, variety, all while reducing personnel costs and unnecessary expenditures It is a matter of excellence, integrity, and courage to explore. It is a matter of audiences encouraging and accepting new sounds and being patient to allow the occasional strikeout or unsuccessful concert. And yes it is also a matter of improved marketing, of better scheduling, of letting go of tradition, of making concerts fun, meaningful, convenient, friendly, profound, participatory, interactive, current, and mostly profitable, This then returns to the fundamental question, can or should great art be profitable? The answer is that it better be.
The 800 or so people present responded to the concert with a standing ovation and an extended applause. The talk on the way out was about the quality of the orchestra and how fortunate to have orchestra of such exceptional ability in the community. All was positive for almost everyone.
What could possibly be negative? After all, it was an incredible experience for the listeners, the players and the audience. The negative is in the $20,000 deficit that resulted from expenses being substantially greater than the revenues. Another way to express this is that the concert cost more in personnel costs than tickets sales generated. Not enough people came to the concert to offset the expenses. In most industries such a loss would cause restructuring, panic, layoffs, changes, talk of bankruptcy, or at the very least reductions in expenditures.
Many questions remain in this situation such as how could something so amazing cause such significant losses or how do fix this problem? Was it an anomaly? Did management simply spend too much? Or perhaps the problem was in marketing and publicity? Maybe had people been made aware of the remarkable musical and emotional experience they would have, they would have been more inclined to buy tickets and attend the concert. Perhaps an aggressive marketing blitz to include social media, newspapers, television, billboards, emails, flyers, mailouts, and posters would have encouraged support, demonstrating the excellence of the orchestra and "selling" people on the benefits of attending would have worked.
Or maybe it was one of those poorly selected nights where there were too many other events interfering with the orchestra concert, resulting in many disappointed people who were unable to attend due to a prior engagement. Yet somehow none of this rings true. The truth shines full in the light of the economics where the revenues are less than the expenses. For the orchestra to live on playing great music, it must find a way to increase revenues and/or decrease expenses. It is not a marketing problem, although that may be a small part of the solution. It is not a matter of choosing music by better composers nor improving the quality of the organization.
It is a matter of trying new approaches, new music, eclecticism, reaching a wider audience, using media, drums, guitars, entertainment, variety, all while reducing personnel costs and unnecessary expenditures It is a matter of excellence, integrity, and courage to explore. It is a matter of audiences encouraging and accepting new sounds and being patient to allow the occasional strikeout or unsuccessful concert. And yes it is also a matter of improved marketing, of better scheduling, of letting go of tradition, of making concerts fun, meaningful, convenient, friendly, profound, participatory, interactive, current, and mostly profitable, This then returns to the fundamental question, can or should great art be profitable? The answer is that it better be.
Thursday, February 05, 2015
Minor or Major?
No, I am not referencing the sounds of chords although maybe there is some sort of psychological association somewhere in the comparison. I am referencing today's surgery on my thumb. Last summer when picking up a table, it slipped a little and landed on the soft part at the bottom of my left thumb. Feeling something different, I decided not to worry about it and go on. The next few days I was a little sore but nothing serious. Time, however, dealt a different blow as arthritis set in to the thumb due to the previous trauma. Eventually the cartilage quit doing its job to keep the bones in the joint from rubbing on the bones. Now many months later it is time for surgery.
The doctor mentioned it was a minor surgery but did say that to a patient it feels major. Not sure what I think about whether it is minor or major but I do know it is involved. After watching a youtube video explaining how the surgery works, I do feel more informed and somewhat fascinated with the process. First the trapezium bones are removed, followed by a hole being drilled in the thumb. Next an incision is made in the wrist to allow the removal of a tendon. The tendon is then moved to the hole in the thumb where it threads through and around the bone. The leftover tendon is then rolled into a tight pack where it is placed in the joint to prevent the bones from being on the bones.
It all sounds easy and will take about an hour followed by 6-8 weeks of recovery in a cast of some sort. The added problem of my thick blood which requires constant thinning with medication is of concern due to the need for proper coagulation. This means I take shots in the stomach for 5 days prior to surgery and 5 days afterward. The only real danger is the day of surgery where I have no blood thinners in me for several hours. But there is no other choice and I just have to hope for the best.
In a couple of months the thumb should feel fine and I will be back to normal (whatever that means!). Returning to the question, is this minor or major? I think it is exactly what the surgeon told me, minor to him and major to me!
The doctor mentioned it was a minor surgery but did say that to a patient it feels major. Not sure what I think about whether it is minor or major but I do know it is involved. After watching a youtube video explaining how the surgery works, I do feel more informed and somewhat fascinated with the process. First the trapezium bones are removed, followed by a hole being drilled in the thumb. Next an incision is made in the wrist to allow the removal of a tendon. The tendon is then moved to the hole in the thumb where it threads through and around the bone. The leftover tendon is then rolled into a tight pack where it is placed in the joint to prevent the bones from being on the bones.
It all sounds easy and will take about an hour followed by 6-8 weeks of recovery in a cast of some sort. The added problem of my thick blood which requires constant thinning with medication is of concern due to the need for proper coagulation. This means I take shots in the stomach for 5 days prior to surgery and 5 days afterward. The only real danger is the day of surgery where I have no blood thinners in me for several hours. But there is no other choice and I just have to hope for the best.
In a couple of months the thumb should feel fine and I will be back to normal (whatever that means!). Returning to the question, is this minor or major? I think it is exactly what the surgeon told me, minor to him and major to me!
Wednesday, January 21, 2015
Improvisation as an Art Form
Following a well-performed recital by an outstanding tenor, I overheard the accompanist mention that she enjoys playing for tenors because they never sing the music exactly as it was prepared. She elaborated by saying she has to remain vigilant in listening and adjusting. I suppose a musical purist devoid of a sense of creativity, spontaneity, or originality might quibble with such veiled affirmation, reminding performers to express the exact intentions of the composer and the time period in which the composition originated. Yet such criticisms many times lack validity and thorough knowledge of both the context and the composer's intent.
True that taken to its logical conclusion, improvisation becomes freedom without restraint, expression without boundaries, and random events apart from governance. Yet looking at the other extreme, music without any kind of improvisatory elements, some kind of absolute adherence to the printed page devoid of personality or personal interpretation subjugates music's emotional benefits both to the performer as well as the listener. Somewhere in the middle of these two extremes lies the concept and benefits of improvisation. On the improvisation spectrum, there are the free style melodies of Charlie Parker, the classy jazz melodies of Clark Terry, the unusually complicated piano sounds of Keith Jarrett, and the splashy experiments of blues artist Thelonius Monk. These are but a drop in the jazz bucket of great jazz improvisers from the past. Today the number of highly respected jazz improvisers is extended across the globe and includes young and old, trained and untrained. But improvisation is not limited to jazz or jazz artists but rather encompasses a long heritage of great performers from all genres of music.
Improvisation has been a valued component of music making since the dawn of humans and the ability to alter, to adapt sound to the particular situation is nearly as natural as sound itself. As music developed in compositional complexity, paralleling that of advanced performance ability, so also did improvisational skills improve. By the time we hit the Romantic period of music in the early 19th century, improvisation was the expectation of soloists as they played with orchestras or in solo concerts. Admittedly, excessive improvisation robbed the composer of his/her intent, yet judicious improvisation was part of the normal training and performance practice of the musicians.
How much is too much or how little is not enough is part of the confusion regarding improvisation along with the need to match the style and framework of the particular piece of music. Artistic license is certainly a valid idea but so is keeping with the unified congruency of the music formed by the composer. This tension was inevitably solved as classically trained musicians adhered to the printed page and avoided any kind of improvisatory elements. The jazz world, however, did not experience such boundaries and foraged into the vast world of musical freedom and expression. Thus did the term improvisation come to be associated with jazz.
In academia we have a rigorous prescription for performance success that includes a cognitive and musical understanding of the context of a piece as well as how to achieve excellence in performance. The comprehensive approach to the education of a musician layers the learning of music theory, music history, applied music, ensembles, and other supportive courses. This approach is well-established and has produced a wealth of outstanding musicians performing throughout the world. But often as people mature and grow through education so also does their creativity tend to decline. This is a common malady which is not necessarily a malady at all but is the normal result of working diligently to master a particular skill.
Music, however, is a subjective art form requiring personal expression on top of great skill. To take music to another level requires a personal combination of adherence to the printed page, depth of personal expression, and a degree of creativity and improvisation. As we continue to develop young musicians of the future, let us not forget that improvisation is an art form, well-deserving of its place in the curriculum, and a skill needed in the future. Difficult for many, natural for others, improvisation can be learned and applied to all music in various forms. Returning to our tenor, kuddos to him for using his gifts and for expressing music in different ways in each performance. It could be what sets apart great performers from good ones.
True that taken to its logical conclusion, improvisation becomes freedom without restraint, expression without boundaries, and random events apart from governance. Yet looking at the other extreme, music without any kind of improvisatory elements, some kind of absolute adherence to the printed page devoid of personality or personal interpretation subjugates music's emotional benefits both to the performer as well as the listener. Somewhere in the middle of these two extremes lies the concept and benefits of improvisation. On the improvisation spectrum, there are the free style melodies of Charlie Parker, the classy jazz melodies of Clark Terry, the unusually complicated piano sounds of Keith Jarrett, and the splashy experiments of blues artist Thelonius Monk. These are but a drop in the jazz bucket of great jazz improvisers from the past. Today the number of highly respected jazz improvisers is extended across the globe and includes young and old, trained and untrained. But improvisation is not limited to jazz or jazz artists but rather encompasses a long heritage of great performers from all genres of music.
Improvisation has been a valued component of music making since the dawn of humans and the ability to alter, to adapt sound to the particular situation is nearly as natural as sound itself. As music developed in compositional complexity, paralleling that of advanced performance ability, so also did improvisational skills improve. By the time we hit the Romantic period of music in the early 19th century, improvisation was the expectation of soloists as they played with orchestras or in solo concerts. Admittedly, excessive improvisation robbed the composer of his/her intent, yet judicious improvisation was part of the normal training and performance practice of the musicians.
How much is too much or how little is not enough is part of the confusion regarding improvisation along with the need to match the style and framework of the particular piece of music. Artistic license is certainly a valid idea but so is keeping with the unified congruency of the music formed by the composer. This tension was inevitably solved as classically trained musicians adhered to the printed page and avoided any kind of improvisatory elements. The jazz world, however, did not experience such boundaries and foraged into the vast world of musical freedom and expression. Thus did the term improvisation come to be associated with jazz.
In academia we have a rigorous prescription for performance success that includes a cognitive and musical understanding of the context of a piece as well as how to achieve excellence in performance. The comprehensive approach to the education of a musician layers the learning of music theory, music history, applied music, ensembles, and other supportive courses. This approach is well-established and has produced a wealth of outstanding musicians performing throughout the world. But often as people mature and grow through education so also does their creativity tend to decline. This is a common malady which is not necessarily a malady at all but is the normal result of working diligently to master a particular skill.
Music, however, is a subjective art form requiring personal expression on top of great skill. To take music to another level requires a personal combination of adherence to the printed page, depth of personal expression, and a degree of creativity and improvisation. As we continue to develop young musicians of the future, let us not forget that improvisation is an art form, well-deserving of its place in the curriculum, and a skill needed in the future. Difficult for many, natural for others, improvisation can be learned and applied to all music in various forms. Returning to our tenor, kuddos to him for using his gifts and for expressing music in different ways in each performance. It could be what sets apart great performers from good ones.
Friday, January 16, 2015
Drums in our Concert and Church Worlds
Once again the subject of a trap set in church and in formal concerts was mentioned to me with disparagement. When I was younger and caught up in the formal, elite world of the arts, I was in full agreement that a trap set had no place in church nor in any kind of "classical" arts-oriented event. Associating a trap set with popular and rock music, I believed in the compartmentalization of musical styles and quickly put a trap set in with the less educated or popular world. It was the same world I placed professional wrestling, cartoons, comic books, and laser art.
My maturity, however, in this area, rather than pointing me toward sophistication has actually sent me into other thought processes where I began to ask the questions of why and how and the ultimate unnecessary polarization of the art forms. Why reject one thing while accepting another? Is it due to preference or is there another reason? For several years I decided that the arts were simply shaped by one's own preference for a certain style. That is still true to an extent but I no longer believe it is that simple. One person enjoys Country/Western, another rock, another hip-hop, another classical, and the list of genres continues. But this does not answer the problem of using drums and a trap set in a concert setting or in church.
When we study history of cultures, we find that drumming is a natural expression of rhythm and music. The Bible often talks about drums and we find references to drums in military actions, entertainment, theatre, and for particular rituals. Drums were and still are used in communication and for emotional expression through music and into every day life. As I walk through a crowded room or sit in a meeting or attend most events, it is common to hear subtle drumming of feet, hands, pens, or the arrhythmia of typing on a computer. Careful listening even reveals the steady sounds of texting on a cell phone! Drumming is all around us and is a normal part of our culture and our daily living. But why do the drums continue to polarize our audiences, our churches, and even our educational curriculum?
I believe it comes back to two reasons: 1) Concert halls and churches were traditionally designed for natural acoustic performance without drums, and 2) Drums became associated with Black music at first and now with popular music. There is a general prejudice, or perhaps bias is a better term, among academic musicians for natural acoustics and for natural performance over sound amplification. Trained vocalists, for example, resist the need for microphones and would much prefer to perform without sound enhancement in a great hall designed for natural acoustics. Academic musicians often quickly become uncomfortable when a microphone is placed in front of them.Their many years in a practice room perfecting their skills and working hard to merge musical details with great expression can be destroyed with a bad microphone, a poor room, or a poor sound technician. Drum usage in a concert hall with voices or other instruments generally requires microphones for soloists. Putting a trap set in St. Paul's Cathedral, for example, almost seems a desecration of that beautiful space.
When Rock music began to influence society, it was an outgrowth of what the Black community had been doing for years. Elvis Presley among others used drums in his songs, danced, and sang in a freer style than previously performed by White musicians. It set the world on its heels and inadvertently helped with race integration in our country. But in the middle of this transformation, we still have the drums, or in this case, the drum set. The drum set became associated not necessarily with Black music but certainly with Rock and Popular music, a concept unacceptable in concert or church settings. Many of those in academia and in churches quickly relegated the drum set to its role in commercial music for the recording studio or for those events where sound amplification was required either for instruments or voices.
The market place, however, began to prevail and demand for the "new" sound (which was not really new at all) in concert halls and churches began to infringe on the attitude of resistance. Unfortunately instead of the concepts merging into a unified musical world for both concerts and church services, many remained strongly resistant and ran the other direction. We continue to have these battles although they seem almost passe' and predictable at times. Certainly such disagreements are valid, but in the end the people supporting trap set usage in concerts and churches are ultimately victorious due to public acclaim. In other words, with exceptions, people like the drums and are comfortable with trap sets in churches and in formal concerts. The division is no longer necessary and those holding onto an old ideal may end up in the catacombs of a heritage gone by such as the telegraph or the drive-in theatre.
Yet I will admit to respecting opinion or preference on this issue. A good friend once told me that he recognizes that using a trap set in a worship service is Biblical and seems to be a strong draw for growth and ministry, but he still does not like it. I appreciate his view which is based on personal taste and preference. What I disagree with are those who reject drum usage based on some sort of arbitrary code of excellence that has no historical or objective merit. The trap set is here to stay and to deny its role in the church and in the concert hall further drives a wedge between academia and the market place. To take it another step further and provide a distant internuncial, if the drums at one time were associated with African-American music, then as we integrate the races and the cultures in our country and work to refine our society with broad acceptance, then that inevitably ought to include an acceptance of all musical styles and instruments in both churches and concert halls. Obviously this is a tall order and a noble but difficult long-term result of musical inclusion.
My maturity, however, in this area, rather than pointing me toward sophistication has actually sent me into other thought processes where I began to ask the questions of why and how and the ultimate unnecessary polarization of the art forms. Why reject one thing while accepting another? Is it due to preference or is there another reason? For several years I decided that the arts were simply shaped by one's own preference for a certain style. That is still true to an extent but I no longer believe it is that simple. One person enjoys Country/Western, another rock, another hip-hop, another classical, and the list of genres continues. But this does not answer the problem of using drums and a trap set in a concert setting or in church.
When we study history of cultures, we find that drumming is a natural expression of rhythm and music. The Bible often talks about drums and we find references to drums in military actions, entertainment, theatre, and for particular rituals. Drums were and still are used in communication and for emotional expression through music and into every day life. As I walk through a crowded room or sit in a meeting or attend most events, it is common to hear subtle drumming of feet, hands, pens, or the arrhythmia of typing on a computer. Careful listening even reveals the steady sounds of texting on a cell phone! Drumming is all around us and is a normal part of our culture and our daily living. But why do the drums continue to polarize our audiences, our churches, and even our educational curriculum?
I believe it comes back to two reasons: 1) Concert halls and churches were traditionally designed for natural acoustic performance without drums, and 2) Drums became associated with Black music at first and now with popular music. There is a general prejudice, or perhaps bias is a better term, among academic musicians for natural acoustics and for natural performance over sound amplification. Trained vocalists, for example, resist the need for microphones and would much prefer to perform without sound enhancement in a great hall designed for natural acoustics. Academic musicians often quickly become uncomfortable when a microphone is placed in front of them.Their many years in a practice room perfecting their skills and working hard to merge musical details with great expression can be destroyed with a bad microphone, a poor room, or a poor sound technician. Drum usage in a concert hall with voices or other instruments generally requires microphones for soloists. Putting a trap set in St. Paul's Cathedral, for example, almost seems a desecration of that beautiful space.
When Rock music began to influence society, it was an outgrowth of what the Black community had been doing for years. Elvis Presley among others used drums in his songs, danced, and sang in a freer style than previously performed by White musicians. It set the world on its heels and inadvertently helped with race integration in our country. But in the middle of this transformation, we still have the drums, or in this case, the drum set. The drum set became associated not necessarily with Black music but certainly with Rock and Popular music, a concept unacceptable in concert or church settings. Many of those in academia and in churches quickly relegated the drum set to its role in commercial music for the recording studio or for those events where sound amplification was required either for instruments or voices.
The market place, however, began to prevail and demand for the "new" sound (which was not really new at all) in concert halls and churches began to infringe on the attitude of resistance. Unfortunately instead of the concepts merging into a unified musical world for both concerts and church services, many remained strongly resistant and ran the other direction. We continue to have these battles although they seem almost passe' and predictable at times. Certainly such disagreements are valid, but in the end the people supporting trap set usage in concerts and churches are ultimately victorious due to public acclaim. In other words, with exceptions, people like the drums and are comfortable with trap sets in churches and in formal concerts. The division is no longer necessary and those holding onto an old ideal may end up in the catacombs of a heritage gone by such as the telegraph or the drive-in theatre.
Yet I will admit to respecting opinion or preference on this issue. A good friend once told me that he recognizes that using a trap set in a worship service is Biblical and seems to be a strong draw for growth and ministry, but he still does not like it. I appreciate his view which is based on personal taste and preference. What I disagree with are those who reject drum usage based on some sort of arbitrary code of excellence that has no historical or objective merit. The trap set is here to stay and to deny its role in the church and in the concert hall further drives a wedge between academia and the market place. To take it another step further and provide a distant internuncial, if the drums at one time were associated with African-American music, then as we integrate the races and the cultures in our country and work to refine our society with broad acceptance, then that inevitably ought to include an acceptance of all musical styles and instruments in both churches and concert halls. Obviously this is a tall order and a noble but difficult long-term result of musical inclusion.
Sunday, January 11, 2015
The Myth of the Happy Slave
A study of slave narratives sometimes reveals slaves who were happy with their environment. This idea is further supported by former slaves expressing their concern with freedom and the problems associated with the period we know as the reconstruction after the civil war. We read the documentation of these and we make historical conclusions that reference a particular time period and a reflection on the immediacy of the circumstances. If studying history in order to provide answers to current problems only looks backwards and only in the context of that which the environment at the time provided, then our ability to grow from knowledge is limited by our erroneous conclusions. The Happy Slave Narrative is one that finds the dutiful slave dancing, singing and working for their white masters and enjoying it. It finds said slave beginning to view their masters as surrogate parents and benefactors. The Happy Slave Narrative is a way to silence the truth and allows for a negating of any responsibility that this nation had/ has for its citizens. It divests black people of their humanity and reduces our representations, bodies, and minds to instruments happy to be of service to white masters (http://www.commdiginews.com/entertainment/leslie-jones-the-happy-slave-narrative-and-modern-day-minstrelsy-17849/#Bw5GopScDl3iyzx accessed 1/12/2015).
I recall running away from home when I was six years old due to my father wanting me to sweep the garage floor. I packed a few items, wrote a note, got permission from my dad, and took off down the street. When I reached the end of the street, I stood there for awhile, felt hungry, knew I should not cross the street without help, and decided to return home. My dad hugged and welcomed me back, gave me a snack and reminded me that I still needed to do some sweeping. Eager to make amends, I swept the garage floor (which in retrospect I realize had rather feeble results), and decided that all was well. I was once again happy with my circumstances.
Now from the above story a historian might conclude that I was the happiest when I was at home with protection, and with my basic needs being met, and comfortable with the required work, and this would not be a wrong conclusion, after all I was six years old at the time. Recognizing this anecdotal story is far from analogous to slavery, it does point to the Hierarchy of Needs chart by Abraham Maslow where humans need to have their physiological and safety needs met before needing love, esteem, and self-actualization. I suppose that had I stayed eternally six years old, I would have remained happy, although it is well to note that the actual running away implied a desire to improve my current circumstances, at least from my perspective. But knowing my basic needs had to be met, I accepted the authority of my dad in order to meet my fundamental needs. I may have wanted something different but ultimately I realized that my hunger and my fear of the unknown world led me back to security, and sadly a little bit of work!
Not all slave owners were evil monsters and there were many owners who practiced kindness and benevolence to their slaves (https://sites.google.com/site/antiquariansquill/academic-writing/the-caring-slave-owner--accessed 1/13/2015). In some instances of slavery, wise owners provided basic needs for their slaves in order to have greater productivity of their land and their business, not to mention the inevitable building of relationships in any kind of living situation. Human beings who live and work together are bound to form relationships of some kind, and some masters and slaves genuinely cared for each other (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2956.html, accessed 1/12/2015). Obviously abuse of this idea did take place and no amount of needs being met can substitute for pain and suffering, but we should neither talk about the extreme and obvious situations nor we should point to the instances of slave owners who treated their property as equals. Instead, we must discuss the human right for freedom of choice and equal opportunity. Slavery as a practice and a concept is indefensible. We do, however, need to discuss the happy quotient as it relates to the role of slaves and their future. While there is no desire for historical revision, there is a need to address the problem of life satisfaction versus the human requirement for freedom of choice. Beginning with the conclusion, every opportunity for freedom of choice should resound with rejoicing and fully embraced by individuals and by society, always within the legal responsibility of providing equal rights for all.
When the slaves were brought to our country from South Africa, as well as the West Indies, they had been grossly mistreated, disallowed from congregating, and considered property not human beings. Paranoia and suspicion followed the slaves from birth to death and their exportation to another country was primarily considered an economic decision for the original owners. European slave traders carried out the shipment of Africans to the Americas. The rulers of West African kingdoms participated in the trade, too. On the coast of Africa, local kings gathered captives from inland. The local kings then traded these captives for European goods, such as textiles, ironware, wine, and guns (http://www.csun.edu/~ae11859/documents/pdf/textbook/86_76-81.pdf Accessed 1/12/2015). Arriving in America, in spite of the lack of freedom, many slaves suddenly had their basic needs met including food, clothing, and shelter. Certainly an improvement from their previous state and a way to live reasonably comfortably, regardless of their improved life situation and regardless of their emotional state, the people still went from slavery to slavery and they were imprisoned due primarily to the despicable view of being property not people. No matter how many sides there may be to the story, and no matter how many ways it can be seen, it was slavery of human beings.
Their happiness, if one could call it that, was short-lived and primarily based on the lower levels of the hierarchy of needs. The reconstruction following the civil war was a messy affair and grossly unfair to the former slaves, but it was still freedom and the alternative to freedom is imprisonment. The efforts to subdue an entire race of people through slavery were over and it was time to move forward toward equality and opportunity for all. Yet such noble goals were and still are difficult and unfortunately it takes many years, tenacity, dedication, and education to achieve even a modicum of equality and opportunity for everyone. Meanwhile as our country shifted its system and attitudes toward refinement, there were likely some who preferred the old ways of having their basic needs met. But whether slaves or non-slaves were happy is entirely irrelevant to the requirement for race equality. Slavery is indefensible and to make a feeble attempt to justify it based on some kind of nebulous happy quotient is erroneous and anathema at best. I further submit that efforts to support the position of slaves being happy is generally unproductive except possibly for the historical reminder of the hierarchy of needs where people must have their physical and safety needs met before pursuing higher orders of thinking.
This does not mean we should squelch those narratives referencing the preference for slavery over freedom due to the problem of basic needs, but we should also consider the implication that such emphases is suggesting. By expending great energy finding examples of how some blacks were happier as slaves inevitably lends itself to preferring race obsequiousness and slavery over liberty, certainly unacceptable and flawed thinking. Yet such endeavors do remind us of the social challenges that faced blacks after the Civil War. While liberty and freedom of choice is always the goal, it does not come without fear, without dedicated effort, and without relentless commitment to progress and improvement. Being told what to do is often safer and more comfortable than making one's own decisions and setting one's own vision for the future.
At some point, however, justice and right need to prevail and need to express the wrongs of slavery and the rights of liberty and equal opportunity. Finding instances and examples of the benefits of slavery serve no purpose other than to cloud the issue and ultimately subjugate not only the people but also the concept of liberty and freedom. Efforts to justify the abject denigration of people based on some arbitrary "happy" quotient are to be disdained. The happy slave is a myth, and imprisonment is never to be desired nor embraced in any sense.
I recall running away from home when I was six years old due to my father wanting me to sweep the garage floor. I packed a few items, wrote a note, got permission from my dad, and took off down the street. When I reached the end of the street, I stood there for awhile, felt hungry, knew I should not cross the street without help, and decided to return home. My dad hugged and welcomed me back, gave me a snack and reminded me that I still needed to do some sweeping. Eager to make amends, I swept the garage floor (which in retrospect I realize had rather feeble results), and decided that all was well. I was once again happy with my circumstances.
Now from the above story a historian might conclude that I was the happiest when I was at home with protection, and with my basic needs being met, and comfortable with the required work, and this would not be a wrong conclusion, after all I was six years old at the time. Recognizing this anecdotal story is far from analogous to slavery, it does point to the Hierarchy of Needs chart by Abraham Maslow where humans need to have their physiological and safety needs met before needing love, esteem, and self-actualization. I suppose that had I stayed eternally six years old, I would have remained happy, although it is well to note that the actual running away implied a desire to improve my current circumstances, at least from my perspective. But knowing my basic needs had to be met, I accepted the authority of my dad in order to meet my fundamental needs. I may have wanted something different but ultimately I realized that my hunger and my fear of the unknown world led me back to security, and sadly a little bit of work!
Not all slave owners were evil monsters and there were many owners who practiced kindness and benevolence to their slaves (https://sites.google.com/site/antiquariansquill/academic-writing/the-caring-slave-owner--accessed 1/13/2015). In some instances of slavery, wise owners provided basic needs for their slaves in order to have greater productivity of their land and their business, not to mention the inevitable building of relationships in any kind of living situation. Human beings who live and work together are bound to form relationships of some kind, and some masters and slaves genuinely cared for each other (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2956.html, accessed 1/12/2015). Obviously abuse of this idea did take place and no amount of needs being met can substitute for pain and suffering, but we should neither talk about the extreme and obvious situations nor we should point to the instances of slave owners who treated their property as equals. Instead, we must discuss the human right for freedom of choice and equal opportunity. Slavery as a practice and a concept is indefensible. We do, however, need to discuss the happy quotient as it relates to the role of slaves and their future. While there is no desire for historical revision, there is a need to address the problem of life satisfaction versus the human requirement for freedom of choice. Beginning with the conclusion, every opportunity for freedom of choice should resound with rejoicing and fully embraced by individuals and by society, always within the legal responsibility of providing equal rights for all.
When the slaves were brought to our country from South Africa, as well as the West Indies, they had been grossly mistreated, disallowed from congregating, and considered property not human beings. Paranoia and suspicion followed the slaves from birth to death and their exportation to another country was primarily considered an economic decision for the original owners. European slave traders carried out the shipment of Africans to the Americas. The rulers of West African kingdoms participated in the trade, too. On the coast of Africa, local kings gathered captives from inland. The local kings then traded these captives for European goods, such as textiles, ironware, wine, and guns (http://www.csun.edu/~ae11859/documents/pdf/textbook/86_76-81.pdf Accessed 1/12/2015). Arriving in America, in spite of the lack of freedom, many slaves suddenly had their basic needs met including food, clothing, and shelter. Certainly an improvement from their previous state and a way to live reasonably comfortably, regardless of their improved life situation and regardless of their emotional state, the people still went from slavery to slavery and they were imprisoned due primarily to the despicable view of being property not people. No matter how many sides there may be to the story, and no matter how many ways it can be seen, it was slavery of human beings.
Their happiness, if one could call it that, was short-lived and primarily based on the lower levels of the hierarchy of needs. The reconstruction following the civil war was a messy affair and grossly unfair to the former slaves, but it was still freedom and the alternative to freedom is imprisonment. The efforts to subdue an entire race of people through slavery were over and it was time to move forward toward equality and opportunity for all. Yet such noble goals were and still are difficult and unfortunately it takes many years, tenacity, dedication, and education to achieve even a modicum of equality and opportunity for everyone. Meanwhile as our country shifted its system and attitudes toward refinement, there were likely some who preferred the old ways of having their basic needs met. But whether slaves or non-slaves were happy is entirely irrelevant to the requirement for race equality. Slavery is indefensible and to make a feeble attempt to justify it based on some kind of nebulous happy quotient is erroneous and anathema at best. I further submit that efforts to support the position of slaves being happy is generally unproductive except possibly for the historical reminder of the hierarchy of needs where people must have their physical and safety needs met before pursuing higher orders of thinking.
This does not mean we should squelch those narratives referencing the preference for slavery over freedom due to the problem of basic needs, but we should also consider the implication that such emphases is suggesting. By expending great energy finding examples of how some blacks were happier as slaves inevitably lends itself to preferring race obsequiousness and slavery over liberty, certainly unacceptable and flawed thinking. Yet such endeavors do remind us of the social challenges that faced blacks after the Civil War. While liberty and freedom of choice is always the goal, it does not come without fear, without dedicated effort, and without relentless commitment to progress and improvement. Being told what to do is often safer and more comfortable than making one's own decisions and setting one's own vision for the future.
At some point, however, justice and right need to prevail and need to express the wrongs of slavery and the rights of liberty and equal opportunity. Finding instances and examples of the benefits of slavery serve no purpose other than to cloud the issue and ultimately subjugate not only the people but also the concept of liberty and freedom. Efforts to justify the abject denigration of people based on some arbitrary "happy" quotient are to be disdained. The happy slave is a myth, and imprisonment is never to be desired nor embraced in any sense.
Wednesday, January 07, 2015
Don't lose the Canon, but let's redefine it
Just read a marvelous piece called "What We Lose if We Lose the Canon" by Arthur Krystal. In this pointed essay, the author postures that as the canon changes and starts becoming commercialized, we are in danger of losing the idea of what makes literature great not just good. He defines great by that which makes us think (http://chronicle.com/article/What-We-Lose-if-We-Lose-the/150991/). He uses several examples of great authors including John Donne, Francis Bacon, Emily Dickinson, William Faulkner, Henry James, Shakespeare, Chekhov, Dickens, Tolstoy, among many others. He also makes brief reference to those authors that I assume "don't make us think" including Nora Roberts, James Lee Burke, Clive Cussler, even Pearl Buck.
Having spent a lifetime reading "great" and "good" and sometimes even poor literature, I certainly understand his position. He is not wrong that great literature, as defined by the test of time, the collective agreement from critics, and from usage in colleges and universities (my definitions, not his), makes us think. Great literature seems to have great emotional and psychological impact on the reader, causing us to return to the works, often many times. I have read and reread Les Miserables by Victor Hugo and will likely do so the rest of my life. I have not reread any Mickey Spillane, Louis L'Amour, John Steinbeck, or David Morrell nor will I do so. Not that I didn't thoroughly enjoy their books and believe I am shaped by their and many others' writings, but the writing style and stories served my purposes at the time and need no revisiting. Those writers did make me think (sorry to tell you that Mr. Krystal) and those writers did tell a great story, but, in general, I am now more impacted by "great" literature that is acknowledged as such.
I further agree with the author that as we put good authors on the same level as great authors, we risk not only losing history but also losing our sense of excellence. As he said, "Some books simply reflect a deeper understanding of the world, of history, of human relationships, of literature itself than do other books." In many special ways, great literature lifts us beyond the scope of everyday living and places us at a higher plane above the messiness and toward the sublime; whereas good literature or popular literature tends to emphasize current problems or personal issues of characters. All that to say, I generally agree with the author's concern about losing the canon of quality literature and replacing it with commercialized literature. Where I part ways with the author is in the area of holding on to the same canon and the resistance to altering it as the world marches forward in areas of refinement and progress. James Lee Burke may be somewhat short-lived as a writer of substance and his books may be considered popular fiction, but he is still a very fine writer and is worth considering for the "canon" of literature. Popularity, of course, does not automatically make something mediocre and as we work to present a new canon, we will inevitably miss the mark at times.
Such was true of Giacomo Meyerbeer, 1791-1864, a famed opera composer in the Romantic era of music, a composer destined for greatness whose music was highly regarded and expected to enter the canon. But, alas, his music did not withstand the test of time and is now relegated to very few performances mainly of some minor historical interest. This is normal and expected of most art and literature, but it does not mean we should focus our attention only on those works that made the list. In fact, a society that moves forward is that which searches for a new canon, a new body of works that encompasses the past, present, and the future. Furthermore, the canon the author describes is comprised primarily of white, mostly male, writers whose works have made some kind of impact on the world. But who decides this canon and why can it not change?
All music, art, and literature was new at one time and the market determined to an extent, right or wrong, its place in the world either as a short-lived work or for sustained benefit. We absolutely must keep pressing forward in the arts and in literature and search for a new canon that embraces the past greatness while seeking the new. We may miss the target and we could fall into the temporary trappings of commercialism, but time will ultimately prove the worth, and time will redefine the canon. Meanwhile, in spite of our failings, we must keep searching for a new canon, something that includes minorities, demonstrates diversity, and has significant meaning. The problem with criticizing commercialism in the arts and literature is that one inadvertently rejects the new and only loves the old. A proponent of both, I posture we continue to redefine the canon while seeking after truth, excellence, and meaning. Mostly, to reiterate, whether it is new or old, it should always make us think.
Having spent a lifetime reading "great" and "good" and sometimes even poor literature, I certainly understand his position. He is not wrong that great literature, as defined by the test of time, the collective agreement from critics, and from usage in colleges and universities (my definitions, not his), makes us think. Great literature seems to have great emotional and psychological impact on the reader, causing us to return to the works, often many times. I have read and reread Les Miserables by Victor Hugo and will likely do so the rest of my life. I have not reread any Mickey Spillane, Louis L'Amour, John Steinbeck, or David Morrell nor will I do so. Not that I didn't thoroughly enjoy their books and believe I am shaped by their and many others' writings, but the writing style and stories served my purposes at the time and need no revisiting. Those writers did make me think (sorry to tell you that Mr. Krystal) and those writers did tell a great story, but, in general, I am now more impacted by "great" literature that is acknowledged as such.
I further agree with the author that as we put good authors on the same level as great authors, we risk not only losing history but also losing our sense of excellence. As he said, "Some books simply reflect a deeper understanding of the world, of history, of human relationships, of literature itself than do other books." In many special ways, great literature lifts us beyond the scope of everyday living and places us at a higher plane above the messiness and toward the sublime; whereas good literature or popular literature tends to emphasize current problems or personal issues of characters. All that to say, I generally agree with the author's concern about losing the canon of quality literature and replacing it with commercialized literature. Where I part ways with the author is in the area of holding on to the same canon and the resistance to altering it as the world marches forward in areas of refinement and progress. James Lee Burke may be somewhat short-lived as a writer of substance and his books may be considered popular fiction, but he is still a very fine writer and is worth considering for the "canon" of literature. Popularity, of course, does not automatically make something mediocre and as we work to present a new canon, we will inevitably miss the mark at times.
Such was true of Giacomo Meyerbeer, 1791-1864, a famed opera composer in the Romantic era of music, a composer destined for greatness whose music was highly regarded and expected to enter the canon. But, alas, his music did not withstand the test of time and is now relegated to very few performances mainly of some minor historical interest. This is normal and expected of most art and literature, but it does not mean we should focus our attention only on those works that made the list. In fact, a society that moves forward is that which searches for a new canon, a new body of works that encompasses the past, present, and the future. Furthermore, the canon the author describes is comprised primarily of white, mostly male, writers whose works have made some kind of impact on the world. But who decides this canon and why can it not change?
All music, art, and literature was new at one time and the market determined to an extent, right or wrong, its place in the world either as a short-lived work or for sustained benefit. We absolutely must keep pressing forward in the arts and in literature and search for a new canon that embraces the past greatness while seeking the new. We may miss the target and we could fall into the temporary trappings of commercialism, but time will ultimately prove the worth, and time will redefine the canon. Meanwhile, in spite of our failings, we must keep searching for a new canon, something that includes minorities, demonstrates diversity, and has significant meaning. The problem with criticizing commercialism in the arts and literature is that one inadvertently rejects the new and only loves the old. A proponent of both, I posture we continue to redefine the canon while seeking after truth, excellence, and meaning. Mostly, to reiterate, whether it is new or old, it should always make us think.
Thursday, January 01, 2015
Music, Worship, Slaves, and Elvis Presley
Despite our preference for compartmentalization of historical events and cultural practices, in truth music cannot be entirely separated from the culture in which it exists past and present. If one wants to study the music from Asia, one must also study the culture, the religion, the historical treatment of the people, the governments, the art, and the philosophies contained with the culture. To do otherwise is to extract the necessary information for accurate understanding of how and why art was created within the community. A study of Asian instruments cannot be removed from knowing something about Hinduism, its philosophies, its influences, and mostly its ideals. For to understand Hinduism is to understand the music of the people and how the music is an extension of the inner peace of which Hindus seek. To study the music apart from the religious practices of the people would be to try to understand the words of a song without knowing the context.
African-American culture, the music, the worship practices, and the people trace back to African musical roots of dancing, playing drums, and singing. Because our present is shaped by our past and because knowledge of the past helps guide the future, it is valuable to understand the heritage that comprises today's musical trends. Racial equality and integration have been difficult to accomplish and we have a long way to go in our country. Governments have passed laws to insist on equality and local governments continue to make strides in integration of the races through hiring practices, educational practices, and cultural events that encourage all people to participate without exclusion. Yet there are cultural areas in which the government cannot and should not interfere including worship practices, music preferences, emotional responses, and relationships. One of the best ways to cross racial barriers is through music. Ironically music also contributes to division and polarization, but that is a topic for another time.
A historical look at African-American music reveals a race of people who responded to music through movement, only to be criticized and legally prevented from moving to music. It was an absurd criticism that can only be attributed to ignorance and some kind of unwarranted suspicion of the activity. Moving the body to music is a natural physiological response to sound and a part of the human experience. Research shows that infants respond to sound by moving their bodies and this natural inclination continues through childhood development. At some point, however, many children cease their natural movement to music except in a controlled environment such as a dance or concert. Nevertheless, moving to music is as natural as listening, walking, or even breathing. This does not, of course, mean that all black music performance involved dancing nor that other music resisted movement. To make such assertions is a dangerous generalization; yet for purposes of this discussion, it does make the point that historically white music does not elicit nor encourage motion. This may be partly due to socialization but also due to an emphases on blocked rhythm over syncopation.
Yet a white culture rejected the movement of slaves as being primitive or inappropriate and this attitude prevailed well into the 20th century with the ridiculous assertion that blacks have a certain way of moving to music and whites have a certain way of moving to music. Sadly, this type of weak categorization smacks of bias and gross generalities. The informative book Sinful Tunes and Spirituals: Black Folk Music to the Civil War by Dena J. Epstein chronicles the practice of slaves dancing and the efforts to stop such activities. On page 27 the author mentions that "the first official attempt to suppress African dancing and instruments was reported by Adrien Dessalles, who had access to the Archives Coloniales." The ordinance was issued on May 4, 1654 prohibiting dancing by blacks (Epstein, Dena J. Sinful Tunes and Spirituals, 1977). Perhaps out of fear of the unknown or simply suspicion of a common element, slave owners remained fearful of slaves meeting to dance, to worship, to sing, or really any form of community. This attitude remained true through the years of slavery in the United States.
Being that music is cathartic, it should come as no surprise that slaves used music and worship as a way to deal with their challenging circumstances, often forming in the evenings away from white ownership. Although some slave owners discouraged and even punished slaves for gathering after working hours, the practice continued. "Slaves forbidden by masters to attend church or, in some cases, even to pray, risked floggings to attend secret gatherings to worship God." (Raboteau, Albert J. The Secret Religion of Slaves, Oxford, 1978). Yet in spite of the concern by the owners, slaves gathered when possible to worship and express their sorrow while seeking after hope through a religious experience. At these services, they sang spirituals, danced, and expressed their hearts through music. "Spirituals are too often seen simply as words and notes printed on a page. What must be recognized is that they emerged as communal songs, heard, felt, sung and often danced with hand-clapping, foot-stamping, headshaking excitement" (Raboteau: The Secret Religion of Slaves, 1978).
Throughout the first half of the 20th century people seemed generally comfortable with a cultural separation of blacks and whites, often viewing blacks in the role of service to the whites in a type of minimally compensated economic slavery. With the rise of jazz, singing groups, and black entertainers, black music became a valued type of music for cultural expression. And yet, whites continued to see black music as distinctive and unique to the race, something enjoyable but not to be practiced by whites. The work of American composer George Gershwin helped quell some of this attitude but the pervasive separation of the races kept the style of the music from being fully integrated in churches, schools, and the concert hall.
"Then came Elvis Presley with his style of gyrating his hips, shaking his leg, and syncopating his rhythms, all perceived as "black" practices in music." "When the 'establishment' accused Elvis Presley of being vulgar, of being deliberately sexual, they did not mean this. This was the cover for what was really meant, what was really feared, and that was that Elvis would lead to equal rights and racial integration. And not just Elvis any white person singing rock 'n' roll. Carl Perkins was warned to not do his show. Elvis was simply the number one guy and therefore got the most attention." (http://www.elvis.com.au/presley/elvis-not-racist.shtml, accessed 1/1/2015).
Elvis was certainly not the first to use a "black" approach to music (http://www.salon.com/2014/05/17/elvis_wasnt_the_first/), but he quickly became the most popular and by virtue of his fame, contributed greatly to an integration of the races through music. Heavily criticized by the white establishment, the younger generation, not interested in separation or in any kind of preferred style of music, simply enjoyed the musical expression of early rock music. Churches and preachers jumped on the band wagon of criticism, claiming the sexual style of music was evil (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PdVqWuqUsI). If black music style causes excessive bodily movement, and if that kind of movement is evil, then it stands to reason that Elvis was evil, an absurd conclusion rejected by popular culture. As Rufus Thomas once said, "A lot of people say that Elvis stole our music. No man has got a music of his own. Music belongs to the universe."
We fast forward to today, and we realize that music naturally lends itself to movement and with that revelation we not only accept and use the black practices of moving to music and utilizing syncopation, we have integrated the idea into our popular and church cultures. We no longer compartmentalize nor harshly judge the style of music but, instead, we accept it as another tool of musical expression, neither lower than nor higher than any other kind of music. As our society marches forward to greater refinement, tolerance, and knowledge of how the past shapes the future, we can bask in our musical eclecticism and recognize that in music we find common ground and inclusion of all races and types of people.
Monday, December 29, 2014
Concerned and disappointed
Aware of the declines in financial support and in ticket sales for "classical" music concerts, I am both concerned and disappointed in the outlook for orchestras, operas, chamber music, and music training in general. Indeed it is true that academic music training has not changed much for at least 50 years, and the system of creating young musicians for performance, teaching, church, and other music related professions has overall been effective. It works and works well with academia producing gifted musicians for the myriad of musical professions needed. But what if we are training musicians for a world that is diminishing, a world that may always be present but only minimally and only in pockets of metropolitan areas. If this is true, and the signs are pointing that direction, then there are only a few options: 1) the world needs to revert back to what it was and appreciate the type of music it once supported, or 2) academia should give up and no longer train musicians (an unimaginable option), or 3) academia should adapt to a changing world.
But it is difficult to change and rather disappointing in many ways due to the benefits and substantial meaning found in classical music. Most trained musicians of which I am familiar stand for the purity and depth found in music of the great composers from the past and consider their music to be foundational to the training needed for musicians as well as meaningful for audience members. Willing and certainly capable of performing popular or commercial music, academically trained musicians generally prefer opportunities to hear and perform music from the past, music that has withstood the test of time, and music considered to be highly respected by critics, historians, and theorists. If it is true that knowledge is power, then it stands to reason that as a musician gains knowledge about music, he/she becomes influential over others, assuming a position of leadership in music by virtue of her skill and her knowledge. Subsequently, a great violinist, for example, performs at a high level music that is befitting of her skill, her knowledge, and her preference, hoping to gain an audience for her art. She is well-trained, skilled, artistic, and if she prefers the music of Mozart or Bartok, to name two highly respected composers, and she has the ability to perform their music with great excellence, then her training, her ability, and her preference for their music ought to reach a vast audience, to be enjoyed by all.
Many musical sociologists, among others, are working to address why declines in audience attendance and support are occurring and are in the process of making certain recommendations for change, including but not limited to better marketing, varied programming, environments, invoking of technology, reduced personnel, seeking larger donor base, and less formality. All these and more are part of the story, but my concern remains in the area of training and education for the musician of the future. The 2004 article from the New York Times is even more applicable today as scores of highly skilled and qualified performers seek to make a living using their gifts and training: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/12/arts/music/12waki.html?pagewanted=all. The argument in favor of music training as a demanding discipline that is applicable to all fields is certainly valid but also a little questionable in light of the need to prepare during college for the chosen profession. The degrees and the ability do not guarantee employment, a serious concern for all those spending great time and resources in preparation for the field of music.
While I personally believe in the "eclectic" approach to music programming and for curriculum development in our colleges and universities, I am also well-aware of the decided attitudes and feelings that many academic musicians have toward excessive eclecticism both in study and in performance. Often during my time of performing with orchestras have I overheard disparaging comments by the players toward popular music. Comments from performers such as, "junk" or "garbage" or "waste of time" or "I suppose we do this to pay the bills" are common and revealing of attitudes. Yet, in spite of the preference by many performers and established audiences for classical music, I do believe the "canon" of excellent literature is changing rapidly and what was once considered mainstream for orchestral performance is now relegated to few performances mostly for historical interest. Unfortunately for those desiring a musical world of Western Art music from the past, time marches forward and with it are societal changes in preferences and taste. Such is especially true in the arts and music in particular.
A moment of negativity: it is a sad commentary on our world when people no longer value an orchestra playing Beethoven or Brahms or Mozart and it demonstrates a lack of refinement and dedication to the craft and skill of the great masters of composition. I already miss the great music of the past and sometimes feel as though only the "top ten" most popular classical works are getting performances. It is certainly a loss and one that will likely never return except for the occasional retro moment similar to watching a VHS tape or listening to a vinyl recording. Charming and ironically rich, those opportunities are rare and although somewhat special, not all that rewarding in the end at least for the general populous. Which brings me to the big question, does art really need to reach large amounts of people or can it be great with a small but appreciative audience? If so, then academic music training should continue on its narrow pathway of focusing on the classics for those who know and love great music.
Yet somehow all this smacks of elitism and snobbery in an era when those traits are not highly regarded. Can we in academia sustain our own definition of excellence at a time when excellence is being redefined through the invisible hand of market forces? I want to say yes absolutely but deep down I also know it is nearly impossible to stop the trend of declining audiences and support for classical music.
A moment of optimism: the declines in audiences and support actually present a golden opportunity for the academy to revitalize its approach to training musicians by letting go of certain tired practices, keeping some things, and trying new ways. It may be time to parlay the old successes into something new for today's musical world. This may include commercial music, world music, technology, overseas study opportunities, choice of emphases and courses, business, and acoustics. This does not mean abandonment of classical music at all but could mean a judicious invoking of many types of music.
Yes I remain concerned with the losses and have some trouble letting go of a system that has worked for so long, and yes I am disappointed in a world that continues moving toward excessive eclecticism while losing the essence of classical music, but I am also excited about the possibilities for the future. It is a future of hope, of musical joy, and of creation, or it may be a future of forgetting the rich heritage of great music (let it not be so), but whatever the future holds, it cannot be prevented. It remains up to the academy to find a way to remind the world of the beauty of the past while forging forward for tomorrow.
But it is difficult to change and rather disappointing in many ways due to the benefits and substantial meaning found in classical music. Most trained musicians of which I am familiar stand for the purity and depth found in music of the great composers from the past and consider their music to be foundational to the training needed for musicians as well as meaningful for audience members. Willing and certainly capable of performing popular or commercial music, academically trained musicians generally prefer opportunities to hear and perform music from the past, music that has withstood the test of time, and music considered to be highly respected by critics, historians, and theorists. If it is true that knowledge is power, then it stands to reason that as a musician gains knowledge about music, he/she becomes influential over others, assuming a position of leadership in music by virtue of her skill and her knowledge. Subsequently, a great violinist, for example, performs at a high level music that is befitting of her skill, her knowledge, and her preference, hoping to gain an audience for her art. She is well-trained, skilled, artistic, and if she prefers the music of Mozart or Bartok, to name two highly respected composers, and she has the ability to perform their music with great excellence, then her training, her ability, and her preference for their music ought to reach a vast audience, to be enjoyed by all.
Many musical sociologists, among others, are working to address why declines in audience attendance and support are occurring and are in the process of making certain recommendations for change, including but not limited to better marketing, varied programming, environments, invoking of technology, reduced personnel, seeking larger donor base, and less formality. All these and more are part of the story, but my concern remains in the area of training and education for the musician of the future. The 2004 article from the New York Times is even more applicable today as scores of highly skilled and qualified performers seek to make a living using their gifts and training: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/12/arts/music/12waki.html?pagewanted=all. The argument in favor of music training as a demanding discipline that is applicable to all fields is certainly valid but also a little questionable in light of the need to prepare during college for the chosen profession. The degrees and the ability do not guarantee employment, a serious concern for all those spending great time and resources in preparation for the field of music.
While I personally believe in the "eclectic" approach to music programming and for curriculum development in our colleges and universities, I am also well-aware of the decided attitudes and feelings that many academic musicians have toward excessive eclecticism both in study and in performance. Often during my time of performing with orchestras have I overheard disparaging comments by the players toward popular music. Comments from performers such as, "junk" or "garbage" or "waste of time" or "I suppose we do this to pay the bills" are common and revealing of attitudes. Yet, in spite of the preference by many performers and established audiences for classical music, I do believe the "canon" of excellent literature is changing rapidly and what was once considered mainstream for orchestral performance is now relegated to few performances mostly for historical interest. Unfortunately for those desiring a musical world of Western Art music from the past, time marches forward and with it are societal changes in preferences and taste. Such is especially true in the arts and music in particular.
A moment of negativity: it is a sad commentary on our world when people no longer value an orchestra playing Beethoven or Brahms or Mozart and it demonstrates a lack of refinement and dedication to the craft and skill of the great masters of composition. I already miss the great music of the past and sometimes feel as though only the "top ten" most popular classical works are getting performances. It is certainly a loss and one that will likely never return except for the occasional retro moment similar to watching a VHS tape or listening to a vinyl recording. Charming and ironically rich, those opportunities are rare and although somewhat special, not all that rewarding in the end at least for the general populous. Which brings me to the big question, does art really need to reach large amounts of people or can it be great with a small but appreciative audience? If so, then academic music training should continue on its narrow pathway of focusing on the classics for those who know and love great music.
Yet somehow all this smacks of elitism and snobbery in an era when those traits are not highly regarded. Can we in academia sustain our own definition of excellence at a time when excellence is being redefined through the invisible hand of market forces? I want to say yes absolutely but deep down I also know it is nearly impossible to stop the trend of declining audiences and support for classical music.
A moment of optimism: the declines in audiences and support actually present a golden opportunity for the academy to revitalize its approach to training musicians by letting go of certain tired practices, keeping some things, and trying new ways. It may be time to parlay the old successes into something new for today's musical world. This may include commercial music, world music, technology, overseas study opportunities, choice of emphases and courses, business, and acoustics. This does not mean abandonment of classical music at all but could mean a judicious invoking of many types of music.
Yes I remain concerned with the losses and have some trouble letting go of a system that has worked for so long, and yes I am disappointed in a world that continues moving toward excessive eclecticism while losing the essence of classical music, but I am also excited about the possibilities for the future. It is a future of hope, of musical joy, and of creation, or it may be a future of forgetting the rich heritage of great music (let it not be so), but whatever the future holds, it cannot be prevented. It remains up to the academy to find a way to remind the world of the beauty of the past while forging forward for tomorrow.
Friday, December 26, 2014
Coffee, Horn, Books, Running
Sure do enjoy a good cup of coffee in the mornings when all is quiet and the world appears peaceful. While sipping on the coffee, I write, peruse articles, read the news, study the stock market, plan the day, and indulge in grand dreams for myself, my family, and my profession. With a great variety of interests, it can be both difficult and joyfully exciting to focus on any one area for very long. This makes a type of mental attention deficit disorder that is fun when nobody is around and distracting for others when surrounded by people. Just an area of weakness for me I suspect.
Horn playing has been and continues to be an important and valuable part of my life since picking it up at the age of 12. But horn playing has simply been a musical expression of myself similar to playing piano or composing or conducting or even listening to music. My horn career has included solos, orchestras, bands, chamber groups, churches, concert halls, tours, and everything in between. I love playing the horn and every time I pick it up, it feels like a best friend with whom I can share my secrets, my fears, my sorrows, my joys, and all the emotions in between. Yet I must admit that horn playing and I are not getting along as well anymore. Not sure why. Could be the slight beginning of arthritis in my muscles or the lack of consistent practice or some kind of air and embouchure disagreement, but I am just not playing at the level I once did. This is difficult to acknowledge and disconcerting in many ways. I have many horn playing friends in administration who have given up playing due to the time constraints and the inability to maintain a high level of playing. But I know other administrators who have kept playing and receive great satisfaction from being an active musician. Not sure where I will land on the spectrum but suspect there will be a time when the horn will be permanently set aside.
Books are disappearing. Libraries continue to reduce their physical collections and replace them with digital resources. Bookstores struggle to pay the bills and I rarely see people reading books. In London, book reading remains active and as many people hold a book in their hands as hold an e-reader but in our country most reading seems to be on a device of some kind. I prefer to hold a physical book in my hands. I am not quite ready to give in to the forces of the digital age and continue to prefer to buy a book and read it. The 1,000 books in my personal library can attest to my love of books of all types and, aside from the wear and tear on the back from moving them, they provide me with significant emotional and cognitive satisfaction. Yes this makes me a dinosaur but somehow I cannot let go of the joy of holding a book in my hands. But similar to horn playing, I can feel the change coming where I let go of physical books and begin to use an e-reader. Saves space, allows for ease of research, generally less expensive, lighter, easy to hold, and certainly quicker to receive, e-readers are now part of our culture's norms. Am I ready? No. Will I give up my books? Not yet. Will I begin to move toward this idea? Yes.
For years I got up every morning and started my routine of 300 jumping jacks, 100 sit-ups, and 100 push-ups. Then one morning my shoulder disagreed with me and said no more push-ups, causing me to take up running. Never being an avid runner, I had trouble imagining running more than about 1/4 mile at any one time. A friend recommended the marvelous book "Born to Run" which led me to believe I could actually run a mile or two. Now today as I write this blog, I just finished 3 miles and feel great. In the summers when I have more time and the weather is cooperating, I will run up to 5 or even 7 miles at times but in the winter months I reduce that to 3. I run nearly everyday and take a different path each time. It is usually dark when I run but I keep some pepper spray in my pocket in case a dog or something wants to have a discussion. I will not be winning any races and am not averse to walking occasionally nor sitting for a minute to remove a pebble or catch my breath. But I love the outdoors and the euphoria that accompanies adrenalin and muscle development. There will be a day when my body will tell me to stop running but that day is not today.
Such concludes this brief and boring essay of sharing my thoughts on coffee, horn playing, books, and running.
Horn playing has been and continues to be an important and valuable part of my life since picking it up at the age of 12. But horn playing has simply been a musical expression of myself similar to playing piano or composing or conducting or even listening to music. My horn career has included solos, orchestras, bands, chamber groups, churches, concert halls, tours, and everything in between. I love playing the horn and every time I pick it up, it feels like a best friend with whom I can share my secrets, my fears, my sorrows, my joys, and all the emotions in between. Yet I must admit that horn playing and I are not getting along as well anymore. Not sure why. Could be the slight beginning of arthritis in my muscles or the lack of consistent practice or some kind of air and embouchure disagreement, but I am just not playing at the level I once did. This is difficult to acknowledge and disconcerting in many ways. I have many horn playing friends in administration who have given up playing due to the time constraints and the inability to maintain a high level of playing. But I know other administrators who have kept playing and receive great satisfaction from being an active musician. Not sure where I will land on the spectrum but suspect there will be a time when the horn will be permanently set aside.
Books are disappearing. Libraries continue to reduce their physical collections and replace them with digital resources. Bookstores struggle to pay the bills and I rarely see people reading books. In London, book reading remains active and as many people hold a book in their hands as hold an e-reader but in our country most reading seems to be on a device of some kind. I prefer to hold a physical book in my hands. I am not quite ready to give in to the forces of the digital age and continue to prefer to buy a book and read it. The 1,000 books in my personal library can attest to my love of books of all types and, aside from the wear and tear on the back from moving them, they provide me with significant emotional and cognitive satisfaction. Yes this makes me a dinosaur but somehow I cannot let go of the joy of holding a book in my hands. But similar to horn playing, I can feel the change coming where I let go of physical books and begin to use an e-reader. Saves space, allows for ease of research, generally less expensive, lighter, easy to hold, and certainly quicker to receive, e-readers are now part of our culture's norms. Am I ready? No. Will I give up my books? Not yet. Will I begin to move toward this idea? Yes.
For years I got up every morning and started my routine of 300 jumping jacks, 100 sit-ups, and 100 push-ups. Then one morning my shoulder disagreed with me and said no more push-ups, causing me to take up running. Never being an avid runner, I had trouble imagining running more than about 1/4 mile at any one time. A friend recommended the marvelous book "Born to Run" which led me to believe I could actually run a mile or two. Now today as I write this blog, I just finished 3 miles and feel great. In the summers when I have more time and the weather is cooperating, I will run up to 5 or even 7 miles at times but in the winter months I reduce that to 3. I run nearly everyday and take a different path each time. It is usually dark when I run but I keep some pepper spray in my pocket in case a dog or something wants to have a discussion. I will not be winning any races and am not averse to walking occasionally nor sitting for a minute to remove a pebble or catch my breath. But I love the outdoors and the euphoria that accompanies adrenalin and muscle development. There will be a day when my body will tell me to stop running but that day is not today.
Such concludes this brief and boring essay of sharing my thoughts on coffee, horn playing, books, and running.
Thursday, December 25, 2014
Joys in Artistry
Having not written a blog post in many months, I suddenly feel compelled to share my thoughts. There are events and objects in the arts that increase my adrenalin and make me honored to be a small of the arts world, works that provide great joy both personally and collectively. While preferences are often singular, in most cases I respond to the arts in expected ways I suppose. If I were the only person who loved the works of Jackson Pollock, then why would his original works be favored by collectors? So I must admit, that in spite of the desire to posit contrarian artistic views, likely my responses are similar to most people. Yet, conformity aside, individual responses are, in fact, unique to that person and whether or not the responses are the same or different from other people is inconsequential. If a person enjoys a good cup of coffee and soon learns that thousands, perhaps millions, also enjoy a good cup of coffee, this does not reduce the individual enjoyment. It makes the experience somewhat collective but it still remains emotionally and personally satisfying. I may love to see the Mona Lisa by DaVinci and I may indeed recognize that my love of the Mona Lisa is not greater nor lesser than much of the world; yet, it is still my own love and is not negated nor strengthened by the market forces of love of the work.
With a broad view of the arts that encompasses both judgment and acceptance, I tend to see the world in cultural, artistic terms rather than scientifically. Most events past, present, and future seem to be more artistically driven than scientifically conceived. Data and objective reason can shape much of our decisions, but in the end it is art that defines the human experience, making life more art than science. In spite of my comprehensive and holistic view of art, I do believe that most people think of art in terms of positive good feelings and satisfying emotions. If an oil painting, a play, a movie, a book, a piece of music is enjoyed, then it must be good art or, to take it another step, it must be art. Therefore if a work of art is emotionally satisfying, then not only is it quality art it excludes other art not satisfying or unappealing. As we follow this logic, then we must conclude several things: 1) Good art is appealing, 2) Bad art is not appealing, 3) Good art represents the finest art, 4) Bad art is to be rejected, 5) Good art has become synonymous with art, and 6) Bad art should not be considered art at all. Such conclusions are without merit and force us to accept only that art that is appealing to an individual.
I recall a heated discussion with a person showing me an artwork that was not appealing in any sense. Her conclusion in the discussion was that the work was not art at all and should be forbidden from being seen. While I agreed that it did not need to be seen, I took umbrage that it was not art. By her definition, art is only art if it appealed to her sense of artistry. While I want to respect her conclusion, I soundly disagree with it. Not only is it weak to acknowledge art based entirely on personal views, it is ultimately unfair to what the arts mean in culture.
Recognizing this as a somewhat dangerous view, I cannot help but believe that all sound is music, all sights are visual art, all written expressions literary art, and all interaction theatre art. Knowing that most if not all people disagree with the previous statement does not deter me in the slightest in my broad view of art and culture. Yet the danger in such an inclusive view of art is in its lack of criteria for excellence. If all sound is music, then is it all equal? If so, then its very equality makes it either all grand and amazing or perhaps all mediocre or even poor. The idea of all being art, regardless of the time, value, or recognized quality, seems to shout that neither good art nor bad art matters in our cultural awareness.
But I admit that I gravitate to the idea that all around me is art and that judgment is personal and based primarily on the emotional or rather the artistic impact the work makes on the individual. Which then circles me back to art providing personal and collective joy in our society. I love reading a great book or even a beautifully written sentence. Here is one: “The business of the poet and the novelist is to show the sorriness underlying the grandest things and the grandeur underlying the sorriest things.” ― Thomas Hardy. I love seeing great art such as this piece by Rubens:
My love of the music of Brahms has never stopped: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-qMtWVf0NA, nor my love of the Sibelius Violin Concerto: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpS_u5RvMpM. Of course who can deny the theatre of Shakespeare or the power of Eugene ONeill: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTQDkNuSaJY? Yet I also enjoy the rock music of Chicago and Bon Jovi, the paintings of Mondrian, the minimalism of Philip Glass, the film music of John Williams, the detective novels of Robert Parker, and the list continues. The sheer strength of great art (defined by its impact not only on me but on thousands, millions of others as well) is balanced by art that is meaningful but not as transformational such as comic books, furniture, home architecture, pop music, light dramas.
Our lives are filled with tension and repose as found in all of art, both completing our emotional gaps and cleansing them at the same time. Yet no definition of art has ever been entirely satisfactory leading me to seek not after a definition but rather a response. Art is transformational and great art more transformational than average or poor art. I am changed more by the writing of Dickens than I am the writing of David Morrell (one of my favorite modern writers) and I am impacted more by the music of Wagner than I am the music of One Direction (again, another current favorite). Regardless of the emotional response, in the end I find great joy in artistry of all types, shapes, and sizes, recognizing that the finest in artistry is that which is the most transformational, often having withstood the test of time. The arts are a blast and I will always remain a great advocate for the arts in our society.
With a broad view of the arts that encompasses both judgment and acceptance, I tend to see the world in cultural, artistic terms rather than scientifically. Most events past, present, and future seem to be more artistically driven than scientifically conceived. Data and objective reason can shape much of our decisions, but in the end it is art that defines the human experience, making life more art than science. In spite of my comprehensive and holistic view of art, I do believe that most people think of art in terms of positive good feelings and satisfying emotions. If an oil painting, a play, a movie, a book, a piece of music is enjoyed, then it must be good art or, to take it another step, it must be art. Therefore if a work of art is emotionally satisfying, then not only is it quality art it excludes other art not satisfying or unappealing. As we follow this logic, then we must conclude several things: 1) Good art is appealing, 2) Bad art is not appealing, 3) Good art represents the finest art, 4) Bad art is to be rejected, 5) Good art has become synonymous with art, and 6) Bad art should not be considered art at all. Such conclusions are without merit and force us to accept only that art that is appealing to an individual.
I recall a heated discussion with a person showing me an artwork that was not appealing in any sense. Her conclusion in the discussion was that the work was not art at all and should be forbidden from being seen. While I agreed that it did not need to be seen, I took umbrage that it was not art. By her definition, art is only art if it appealed to her sense of artistry. While I want to respect her conclusion, I soundly disagree with it. Not only is it weak to acknowledge art based entirely on personal views, it is ultimately unfair to what the arts mean in culture.
Recognizing this as a somewhat dangerous view, I cannot help but believe that all sound is music, all sights are visual art, all written expressions literary art, and all interaction theatre art. Knowing that most if not all people disagree with the previous statement does not deter me in the slightest in my broad view of art and culture. Yet the danger in such an inclusive view of art is in its lack of criteria for excellence. If all sound is music, then is it all equal? If so, then its very equality makes it either all grand and amazing or perhaps all mediocre or even poor. The idea of all being art, regardless of the time, value, or recognized quality, seems to shout that neither good art nor bad art matters in our cultural awareness.
But I admit that I gravitate to the idea that all around me is art and that judgment is personal and based primarily on the emotional or rather the artistic impact the work makes on the individual. Which then circles me back to art providing personal and collective joy in our society. I love reading a great book or even a beautifully written sentence. Here is one: “The business of the poet and the novelist is to show the sorriness underlying the grandest things and the grandeur underlying the sorriest things.” ― Thomas Hardy. I love seeing great art such as this piece by Rubens:
My love of the music of Brahms has never stopped: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-qMtWVf0NA, nor my love of the Sibelius Violin Concerto: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpS_u5RvMpM. Of course who can deny the theatre of Shakespeare or the power of Eugene ONeill: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTQDkNuSaJY? Yet I also enjoy the rock music of Chicago and Bon Jovi, the paintings of Mondrian, the minimalism of Philip Glass, the film music of John Williams, the detective novels of Robert Parker, and the list continues. The sheer strength of great art (defined by its impact not only on me but on thousands, millions of others as well) is balanced by art that is meaningful but not as transformational such as comic books, furniture, home architecture, pop music, light dramas.
Our lives are filled with tension and repose as found in all of art, both completing our emotional gaps and cleansing them at the same time. Yet no definition of art has ever been entirely satisfactory leading me to seek not after a definition but rather a response. Art is transformational and great art more transformational than average or poor art. I am changed more by the writing of Dickens than I am the writing of David Morrell (one of my favorite modern writers) and I am impacted more by the music of Wagner than I am the music of One Direction (again, another current favorite). Regardless of the emotional response, in the end I find great joy in artistry of all types, shapes, and sizes, recognizing that the finest in artistry is that which is the most transformational, often having withstood the test of time. The arts are a blast and I will always remain a great advocate for the arts in our society.
Tuesday, December 23, 2014
A New Theory for Music Theory
It is not within the scope of this study to examine the history of music theory and what that entails; however, a perspective is necessary before proposing something new or different. The study of music theory follows the creation of music. When we look at early treatises on music, we realize that music (sound organized) was first created and then studied. This was followed by more music and more studies. We have to study that which has already been created. One cannot study that which does not exist. Consequently we are not studying sound in and of itself but, instead, are studying how someone else has organized the sound into music. Because theory follows practice rather than practice following theory, it stands to reason that music is first created and then studied. Thus music theory as an academic discipline is born out of the need to understand the creation or organization of sound.
Not that there have not been many bold proposals for new ways to create music based on theoretical principles, but the expected study of music theory is based on actual examples of music from history. This is how it should be and generations of music students have been indoctrinated through the system, a system that works diligently to support young musicians in their careers by providing the essential knowledge and skills needed in music. In a type of music foundation curriculum, music theory gives students the tools they need to be musically successful regardless of their chosen field in music. Based primarily on a European model, the study of music theory provides an overview and the analytical skills to understand music, to create music, and to perform music whether that is on an instrument or voice.
As a theory supplement, most schools also require a modicum of keyboard skills that in turn help in the understanding of how music is organized. Keyboard skills are a necessary part of the curriculum depending on the direction of the musical career. Traditional music education requires musical comprehension of at least two clefs which in turn provides an aural and cognitive understanding of harmony. Rather than emphasizing one set of notes that create a melody, in music theory we work to help students grasp the complexities of more than one tone at a time. Having basic keyboard skills allows to move beyond the melody only and into the world of sound and its variety as well as potential. While the argument continues to be made that having keyboard skills is also necessary from a practical standpoint, ie. the need to play the National Anthem occasionally, or provide music for events or to accompany, that argument is less valid today than in year's past.
A word, however, on the value of keyboard skills is warranted. Recent declines in skilled pianists who can accompany, play church music, provide background music, or entertain for events will ultimately result in significant alterations of current music study including the expectations for applied music. Without accompanists, teachers and students are relegated to unaccompanied performance or performance with technological substitutions, neither of which is entirely satisfactory. Meanwhile, those pianists with the aforementioned skills are in great demand with no end in sight, catapulting their position not only in the musical world but also in communities and churches where pianists are needed. Unfortunately, because the nature of piano skills requires many years of dedicated concentration and practice, taking a few courses in piano, in many perhaps most cases, will not satisfy the need for having "functional" skills in piano. Yet, it does remain true that even basic knowledge of the keyboard enhances musical knowledge for students.
Back to music theory. It is time to reevaluate not only how we teach music theory but also the purpose behind the learning of music theory. When we analyze the goals of creating musicians for the future, we may call into question many of the expectations of what it means to have a working knowledge of music theory. Has the sequence of courses in music theory become a kind of "rite of passage" or does the sequence still have meaning and relevancy in today's world? The answer is probably a little of both, leading me to question the age-old system in music theory. Of course there is no right way nor wrong way, and a student's personal goals should be considered in the process, but if we were to redesign a music theory curriculum by examining the multi-dimensioned world of music and sound, we may find that the fundamental knowledge we treasure and value has changed and needs a healthy injection of modernism.
Although doubtful that changes in music theory need be iconoclastic, any change may require abandoning some old ways in favor of something new. And experiments in new approaches to music theory and rejecting some but not all of the "traditional" curriculum are occurring in our colleges and universities. Yes, something is certainly lost when students do not learn and ultimately love the music of Bach, but there are also inevitable gains when they learn how music in films, on stage, in concert halls, and popular music is created. In the end, I believe it is worth a try.
Not that there have not been many bold proposals for new ways to create music based on theoretical principles, but the expected study of music theory is based on actual examples of music from history. This is how it should be and generations of music students have been indoctrinated through the system, a system that works diligently to support young musicians in their careers by providing the essential knowledge and skills needed in music. In a type of music foundation curriculum, music theory gives students the tools they need to be musically successful regardless of their chosen field in music. Based primarily on a European model, the study of music theory provides an overview and the analytical skills to understand music, to create music, and to perform music whether that is on an instrument or voice.
As a theory supplement, most schools also require a modicum of keyboard skills that in turn help in the understanding of how music is organized. Keyboard skills are a necessary part of the curriculum depending on the direction of the musical career. Traditional music education requires musical comprehension of at least two clefs which in turn provides an aural and cognitive understanding of harmony. Rather than emphasizing one set of notes that create a melody, in music theory we work to help students grasp the complexities of more than one tone at a time. Having basic keyboard skills allows to move beyond the melody only and into the world of sound and its variety as well as potential. While the argument continues to be made that having keyboard skills is also necessary from a practical standpoint, ie. the need to play the National Anthem occasionally, or provide music for events or to accompany, that argument is less valid today than in year's past.
A word, however, on the value of keyboard skills is warranted. Recent declines in skilled pianists who can accompany, play church music, provide background music, or entertain for events will ultimately result in significant alterations of current music study including the expectations for applied music. Without accompanists, teachers and students are relegated to unaccompanied performance or performance with technological substitutions, neither of which is entirely satisfactory. Meanwhile, those pianists with the aforementioned skills are in great demand with no end in sight, catapulting their position not only in the musical world but also in communities and churches where pianists are needed. Unfortunately, because the nature of piano skills requires many years of dedicated concentration and practice, taking a few courses in piano, in many perhaps most cases, will not satisfy the need for having "functional" skills in piano. Yet, it does remain true that even basic knowledge of the keyboard enhances musical knowledge for students.
Back to music theory. It is time to reevaluate not only how we teach music theory but also the purpose behind the learning of music theory. When we analyze the goals of creating musicians for the future, we may call into question many of the expectations of what it means to have a working knowledge of music theory. Has the sequence of courses in music theory become a kind of "rite of passage" or does the sequence still have meaning and relevancy in today's world? The answer is probably a little of both, leading me to question the age-old system in music theory. Of course there is no right way nor wrong way, and a student's personal goals should be considered in the process, but if we were to redesign a music theory curriculum by examining the multi-dimensioned world of music and sound, we may find that the fundamental knowledge we treasure and value has changed and needs a healthy injection of modernism.
Although doubtful that changes in music theory need be iconoclastic, any change may require abandoning some old ways in favor of something new. And experiments in new approaches to music theory and rejecting some but not all of the "traditional" curriculum are occurring in our colleges and universities. Yes, something is certainly lost when students do not learn and ultimately love the music of Bach, but there are also inevitable gains when they learn how music in films, on stage, in concert halls, and popular music is created. In the end, I believe it is worth a try.
Saturday, June 21, 2014
The Mystery of Collaboration
Having worked in this world of the arts on many levels, I hold the ideal of artistic collaboration to be quite difficult yet essential to the totality of the arts. The life of a musician and the life of an artist is one of singularity over solidarity, lending itself to a contained world of insular self-expression. The glorious opportunity to be in a room making music for an audience of one is a necessary part of the process of artistic growth. Individual development is a lifelong endeavor and the life of an artist requires constant improvement to the chosen craft. Like a great athlete or scientist or mathematician, an artist works relentlessly, and usually alone, to attain excellence.
This truth, however, augers against the need for the arts to make a bold and collective impact on the world through communication and public performance. Although somehow satisfying to make art or music in a room without public scrutiny, it also makes little sense other than meeting some kind of personal need. Perhaps this meets an emotional niche for the individual but there certainly is no impact on society or culture through this approach. Contrary to Milton Babbit's philosophy of the lack of a need for an audience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Cares_if_You_Listen), the arts are not sustainable without the public eye or ear.
But aside from those who produce great art in a vacuum apart from other people, there is much to gain through collaboration. This is not to take away from great pianists, guitarists, solo singers, painters, or sculptors, but it is to say that art makes room for the collective experience. Unfortunately, in the arts, mostly due to the singular focus and the sheer amount of time alone, artists struggle with collaboration. Sitting in a practice room making a multitude of musical decisions and suddenly being required to share in the decision making process is nearly antithetical to what it means to be personally expressive. Trained and talented musicians reach a point where they determine the musical goals that are within their preference zone, their experience, and their intuitive conditioning. Having to give up ownership of their expressive musical goals is akin to allowing others to drive your car or live in your home. It feels neither natural nor comfortable to do so. Most advanced artists prefer to be in charge, to retain ownership of the decisions, and to be the musical leader whether that is individually or collectively.
In spite of the repeated experiments in ensemble playing without a conductor, there seems to remain a need for a central leadership figure. This system works well (mostly, anyway) for large musical ensembles but is often not necessary for smaller groups. That said, many a rock band has experienced demise due to power struggles within the unit. As musical organizations grow, so does the need for strong musical leadership. Yet this very need begins to push against the need for collaboration, making such endeavors a mystery in the arts. Artists require a strong sense of individual expressiveness, yet many art forms, on a grand scale, require collaboration. This tension can only be healthy when all constituents recognize the ultimate goal of providing a positive artistic experience for the audience.
One of the great artistic genres that absolutely requires collaboration is in musical theatre and opera (terms that should not be used separately from my perspective). "No art form exists independently of the conditions in which it is enjoyed." (Tim Parks, http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2014/jun/10/reading-struggle/, accessed 6/13/2014) and such is true in musical theatre where the preparation involves large forces and the performance space determines much of the outcome. In musical theatre costumes, sets, acting, singing, orchestra, directors, lighting, sound, literature, and ultimately audiences come together for what is one of the great examples of artistic collaboration in today's culture. And musical theatre is enjoying a substantial market share and a growing audience base.
Not that shows are easy and the amount of collaboration required is tremendous, often with many strong-willed artists involved seeking to come to agreement and consensus on matters related to all facets of the show. Artistry goals aside, in the end the goal is to communicate to people, develop an audience, and, turn a profit. When the profit motive is active, it forces the collaborative process to succeed in the end. Yet when there is no profit motive, such as collaboration in an academic institution, the process has the real potential to be a power and/or artistic struggle between individuals or groups. Sadly, when the struggle digresses into a complete lack of mutual cooperation, the result is a poor performance or cancellation of intended event.
The driving force for successful collaboration does not appear to be artistic excellence despite what artists often claim. The impetus for collaborative success may not be as lofty as we would prefer but may, instead, be public support. A small but appreciative audience is always emotionally rewarding and should not be discredited, but, when the audience is substantial and revenues exceed expenses, everyone benefits. Such is the case in collective collaborative artistic experiences. These experiences are lined with purpose that overrides individual achievement. Yet without a solid, concrete purpose, artistic collaboration will remain a mystery that is mired in abstract and often self-serving emotional regions.
This truth, however, augers against the need for the arts to make a bold and collective impact on the world through communication and public performance. Although somehow satisfying to make art or music in a room without public scrutiny, it also makes little sense other than meeting some kind of personal need. Perhaps this meets an emotional niche for the individual but there certainly is no impact on society or culture through this approach. Contrary to Milton Babbit's philosophy of the lack of a need for an audience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Cares_if_You_Listen), the arts are not sustainable without the public eye or ear.
But aside from those who produce great art in a vacuum apart from other people, there is much to gain through collaboration. This is not to take away from great pianists, guitarists, solo singers, painters, or sculptors, but it is to say that art makes room for the collective experience. Unfortunately, in the arts, mostly due to the singular focus and the sheer amount of time alone, artists struggle with collaboration. Sitting in a practice room making a multitude of musical decisions and suddenly being required to share in the decision making process is nearly antithetical to what it means to be personally expressive. Trained and talented musicians reach a point where they determine the musical goals that are within their preference zone, their experience, and their intuitive conditioning. Having to give up ownership of their expressive musical goals is akin to allowing others to drive your car or live in your home. It feels neither natural nor comfortable to do so. Most advanced artists prefer to be in charge, to retain ownership of the decisions, and to be the musical leader whether that is individually or collectively.
In spite of the repeated experiments in ensemble playing without a conductor, there seems to remain a need for a central leadership figure. This system works well (mostly, anyway) for large musical ensembles but is often not necessary for smaller groups. That said, many a rock band has experienced demise due to power struggles within the unit. As musical organizations grow, so does the need for strong musical leadership. Yet this very need begins to push against the need for collaboration, making such endeavors a mystery in the arts. Artists require a strong sense of individual expressiveness, yet many art forms, on a grand scale, require collaboration. This tension can only be healthy when all constituents recognize the ultimate goal of providing a positive artistic experience for the audience.
One of the great artistic genres that absolutely requires collaboration is in musical theatre and opera (terms that should not be used separately from my perspective). "No art form exists independently of the conditions in which it is enjoyed." (Tim Parks, http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2014/jun/10/reading-struggle/, accessed 6/13/2014) and such is true in musical theatre where the preparation involves large forces and the performance space determines much of the outcome. In musical theatre costumes, sets, acting, singing, orchestra, directors, lighting, sound, literature, and ultimately audiences come together for what is one of the great examples of artistic collaboration in today's culture. And musical theatre is enjoying a substantial market share and a growing audience base.
Not that shows are easy and the amount of collaboration required is tremendous, often with many strong-willed artists involved seeking to come to agreement and consensus on matters related to all facets of the show. Artistry goals aside, in the end the goal is to communicate to people, develop an audience, and, turn a profit. When the profit motive is active, it forces the collaborative process to succeed in the end. Yet when there is no profit motive, such as collaboration in an academic institution, the process has the real potential to be a power and/or artistic struggle between individuals or groups. Sadly, when the struggle digresses into a complete lack of mutual cooperation, the result is a poor performance or cancellation of intended event.
The driving force for successful collaboration does not appear to be artistic excellence despite what artists often claim. The impetus for collaborative success may not be as lofty as we would prefer but may, instead, be public support. A small but appreciative audience is always emotionally rewarding and should not be discredited, but, when the audience is substantial and revenues exceed expenses, everyone benefits. Such is the case in collective collaborative artistic experiences. These experiences are lined with purpose that overrides individual achievement. Yet without a solid, concrete purpose, artistic collaboration will remain a mystery that is mired in abstract and often self-serving emotional regions.
Thursday, June 12, 2014
The Pebble
Not sure how it happened, but this morning as I finished 2/3 of my morning run, a pebble got in my shoe. I suppose it occurred as I ran along the highway where the road meets the land and the man-made material moves into nature leaving behind loose pebbles and rocks along the way. And one of those little guys jumped into my shoe, making me quite uncomfortable.
I kept going and the pebble moved as I moved. Sometimes under the large toe but other times within the empty spaces between the toes or under the arch, the pebble kept altering positions. Several steps later it would move again somehow landing in the wrong spot for any kind of comfort. Comfort is an unusual word in running since there is virtually nothing comfortable about the process. Pain accompanies virtually every motion and between the huffing and puffing, aching legs, and hurting muscles I did not know existed, it seemed silly to worry about a little pebble.
Yet every few steps there was the pebble again. Painful enough to announce its presence but not quite bad enough to warrant stopping to remove it. So I kept plugging away with the end getting nearer and the pain increasing. Imagining sitting on a curb, removing my shoe, emptying the shoe of the little demon but also knowing the challenge of standing up again, I elected to keep going. In my advancing years, I have developed a problem with standing up from a place near the ground. This is primarily why I prefer a standing desk and why I can run more easily than play games on the floor.
The goal of completing my run was greater than the vicious little culprit I began to call Lucifer could cause. It kind of reminded me of the old story about the man who spent a cold night on a mountain who watched a fire several miles away and imagined himself near the fire all night long. Could my imagination conquer the reality? Maybe.
Finally seeing the domicile and knowing I could soon stop, I began to relish the idea of removing the shoe, seeing Lucifer in the flesh so to speak, and defenestrating him forever. Into the house I entered huffing and puffing but oddly joyful the experience was over, I sat on the chair and removed the shoe. I walked to the trash can and decided to empty the shoe in my hand, smile evilly at Lucifer and say goodbye. Expecting the item to sneer or attack in some way, I looked in my hand and saw a tiny little pebble. Without any histrionics, I threw it away, reflecting how ironic that such a small, insignificant pebble could create such emotional turmoil. There is some kind of a lesson in all this that needs no further articulation. Thus ends the pebble in the shoe for today.
I kept going and the pebble moved as I moved. Sometimes under the large toe but other times within the empty spaces between the toes or under the arch, the pebble kept altering positions. Several steps later it would move again somehow landing in the wrong spot for any kind of comfort. Comfort is an unusual word in running since there is virtually nothing comfortable about the process. Pain accompanies virtually every motion and between the huffing and puffing, aching legs, and hurting muscles I did not know existed, it seemed silly to worry about a little pebble.
Yet every few steps there was the pebble again. Painful enough to announce its presence but not quite bad enough to warrant stopping to remove it. So I kept plugging away with the end getting nearer and the pain increasing. Imagining sitting on a curb, removing my shoe, emptying the shoe of the little demon but also knowing the challenge of standing up again, I elected to keep going. In my advancing years, I have developed a problem with standing up from a place near the ground. This is primarily why I prefer a standing desk and why I can run more easily than play games on the floor.
The goal of completing my run was greater than the vicious little culprit I began to call Lucifer could cause. It kind of reminded me of the old story about the man who spent a cold night on a mountain who watched a fire several miles away and imagined himself near the fire all night long. Could my imagination conquer the reality? Maybe.
Finally seeing the domicile and knowing I could soon stop, I began to relish the idea of removing the shoe, seeing Lucifer in the flesh so to speak, and defenestrating him forever. Into the house I entered huffing and puffing but oddly joyful the experience was over, I sat on the chair and removed the shoe. I walked to the trash can and decided to empty the shoe in my hand, smile evilly at Lucifer and say goodbye. Expecting the item to sneer or attack in some way, I looked in my hand and saw a tiny little pebble. Without any histrionics, I threw it away, reflecting how ironic that such a small, insignificant pebble could create such emotional turmoil. There is some kind of a lesson in all this that needs no further articulation. Thus ends the pebble in the shoe for today.
Tuesday, June 03, 2014
The Schlock Factor
Just finished a marvelous piece by Jody Rosen titled In Defense of Schlock. In this extensive essay, the author outlines criteria used to define and defend musical schlock in popular genres. He discusses the musical properties associated with schlock and addresses context, themes, and textual content for the music we often associate with schlock. Basing much of his argument on Don't Stop Believing by Journey, Rosen points out the need for schlock in our lives as exemplified by the staying power of much of the music. While the essay reads a little like a historical listing of favorite schlock hits (which he addresses as well), overall he covers the subject quite well and reminds us of both the diversity of the listening public and the power of nostalgia, melody, harmonic simplicity, and quality popular singing styles. This highly recommended essay (http://www.vulture.com/2014/05/jody-rosen-in-defense-of-schlock-music.html) serves as a springboard for expressing my concerns with arts programs and curriculum in today's higher education.
Most people like schlock in music but trained academic musicians generally do not (I do apologize for the gross generalities and am well aware of many exceptions to the statement). Although Rosen's article is in defense of schlock, in spite of its emotionally satisfying musical content, schlock leans toward the musically simplistic side. As tends to happen in all disciplines, the more one knows and understands, the greater becomes the desire for depth of expression. This is the normal process of education and at times it does have a down side. Moving from the concrete to the abstract or the known to the unknown has the tendency to make us emotionally and intellectually dissatisfied with the known or the concrete examples of the discipline. Not that simplistic music, literature, art, or science are problems in and of themselves, and often humans desire simpler expressions of thought, but education in its purest form is designed to demand and to create a comprehensive understanding, perhaps solutions, of complex problems. This means in music that academically trained musicians find themselves in study of Beethoven, Brahms, Stravinsky, and Messiaen over the music of Journey, Lionel Richie, Barry Manilow, and Katy Perry. Such is the normal progression of education.
But as we become more educated about music, we also fall into a trap of exclusion, marginalizing that which does not meet our criteria of excellence or complexity. This is grand and adds to the mystique of excellence which we tend to propagate by virtue of our training and ability. Preferring to live in a world of musical complexity, avoiding schlock when possible, and expressing that music which meets our criteria of time and musical advancement, we find ourselves in the untenable position of performing music for those with equal education and preferences. Again, there is nothing negative about such a practice and, in spite of the lack of strong market forces, we enjoy and prefer advanced culturally refined music.
Our exclusionary curriculum is well and good for producing like-minded students and patting ourselves on the back for our knowledge and our rejection of schlock. But how far can our rejection of powerful market forces sustain our current curricular practices? There is a reason that Don't Stop Believing continues to be revered and enjoyed by so many. It has passed the test of time, at least in the short-term, and is a beloved song in spite or because of its simplistic message and its musical content. Admittedly, there are several works in the classical genre that seem to lean on the "schlocky" side of music, and their frequent performances have become mundane and predictable, adding to their oft disparagement by academic musicians. The musical content may be rich with intellectual and expressive depth, but their popularity has taken them to the level of Don't Stop Believing in terms of commercialism. Music such as Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring by Bach, Rachmaninoff's 2nd Symphony, Brahms' Lullaby, Mozart's Eine Kleine Nachtmusik, and Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata are but a few of the examples.
It may be time, however, for the academic community of musicians to stop looking down on the schlock and, instead, embrace it as a vital part of today's curriculum. Not that we want music of the Carpenters, Air Supply, Chicago ballads, and Katy Perry (all of which I enjoy) to rule the day, but we do need to find musical ways to reach people and make an impact on a world that seems to love schlock and all that accompanies it. Without any kind of exposure of commercialism and popular music of today, we teeter on brink of a dark hole of music curriculum that may one day join the archaic world of drive-in movies, typewriters, horse and buggy, and jousting in woods. This is a call to action and that call goes out to schools of music and music faculty to recognize the value of a judicious usage of schlock in the curriculum. We will make an impact on the world when the world responds to what we do. A comprehensive music program must include a comprehensive look at music in its entirety without the rejection of that which does not meet the prescribed criteria. It is time to consider the schlock factor!
Most people like schlock in music but trained academic musicians generally do not (I do apologize for the gross generalities and am well aware of many exceptions to the statement). Although Rosen's article is in defense of schlock, in spite of its emotionally satisfying musical content, schlock leans toward the musically simplistic side. As tends to happen in all disciplines, the more one knows and understands, the greater becomes the desire for depth of expression. This is the normal process of education and at times it does have a down side. Moving from the concrete to the abstract or the known to the unknown has the tendency to make us emotionally and intellectually dissatisfied with the known or the concrete examples of the discipline. Not that simplistic music, literature, art, or science are problems in and of themselves, and often humans desire simpler expressions of thought, but education in its purest form is designed to demand and to create a comprehensive understanding, perhaps solutions, of complex problems. This means in music that academically trained musicians find themselves in study of Beethoven, Brahms, Stravinsky, and Messiaen over the music of Journey, Lionel Richie, Barry Manilow, and Katy Perry. Such is the normal progression of education.
But as we become more educated about music, we also fall into a trap of exclusion, marginalizing that which does not meet our criteria of excellence or complexity. This is grand and adds to the mystique of excellence which we tend to propagate by virtue of our training and ability. Preferring to live in a world of musical complexity, avoiding schlock when possible, and expressing that music which meets our criteria of time and musical advancement, we find ourselves in the untenable position of performing music for those with equal education and preferences. Again, there is nothing negative about such a practice and, in spite of the lack of strong market forces, we enjoy and prefer advanced culturally refined music.
Our exclusionary curriculum is well and good for producing like-minded students and patting ourselves on the back for our knowledge and our rejection of schlock. But how far can our rejection of powerful market forces sustain our current curricular practices? There is a reason that Don't Stop Believing continues to be revered and enjoyed by so many. It has passed the test of time, at least in the short-term, and is a beloved song in spite or because of its simplistic message and its musical content. Admittedly, there are several works in the classical genre that seem to lean on the "schlocky" side of music, and their frequent performances have become mundane and predictable, adding to their oft disparagement by academic musicians. The musical content may be rich with intellectual and expressive depth, but their popularity has taken them to the level of Don't Stop Believing in terms of commercialism. Music such as Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring by Bach, Rachmaninoff's 2nd Symphony, Brahms' Lullaby, Mozart's Eine Kleine Nachtmusik, and Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata are but a few of the examples.
It may be time, however, for the academic community of musicians to stop looking down on the schlock and, instead, embrace it as a vital part of today's curriculum. Not that we want music of the Carpenters, Air Supply, Chicago ballads, and Katy Perry (all of which I enjoy) to rule the day, but we do need to find musical ways to reach people and make an impact on a world that seems to love schlock and all that accompanies it. Without any kind of exposure of commercialism and popular music of today, we teeter on brink of a dark hole of music curriculum that may one day join the archaic world of drive-in movies, typewriters, horse and buggy, and jousting in woods. This is a call to action and that call goes out to schools of music and music faculty to recognize the value of a judicious usage of schlock in the curriculum. We will make an impact on the world when the world responds to what we do. A comprehensive music program must include a comprehensive look at music in its entirety without the rejection of that which does not meet the prescribed criteria. It is time to consider the schlock factor!
Monday, June 02, 2014
Inventory in the Arts
An area of concern for the future of arts programs is in inventory acquisition and general maintenance. Unlike other disciplines that simply require classroom space with basic desks, chairs, technology, and minimal materials, the arts demands an extensive inventory of materials in order to function at a high level. In art departments we find photography equipment including black rooms, enlargers, clean up facilities, ceramics, wheels, sculpture equipment, easels, canvases, open spaces, tools, printers, large desks, special lighting, in addition to normal classroom space and a gallery. Theatre departments need large spaces, a workshop complete with tools, lumber, and props, a costume shop, lighting, sound equipment, chairs, music stands, risers, steps, and nearly unlimited makeup. Classrooms require not only desks, but mirrors, space, and advanced technology.
Music departments must have soundproof practice rooms, quality pianos that require frequent tuning, music stands, specialty chairs, libraries, instruments for concert playing as well as marching, uniforms, risers, temperature controlled facilities, acoustical requirements in concert halls and rooms, various sized classroom space to include desks, technology, and open areas. Music facilities must also have computer labs, recording technology, and multi-media equipment.
Music, art, and theatre facilities require significant storage areas, unusual requirements for safety (consider hearing health in music), and, although not necessarily required, decor that reflects the rich heritage of the arts as well as the progressive nature of the disciplines. When we consider the inventory needs and unique requirements for the arts, it should come as no surprise when budget managers and financial examiners become concerned with the fiscal demands of the arts in higher education. Although most of these initial expenses become long-term assets, there are also ongoing expenses related to inventory development to match program goals. To put it plainly, arts programs are expensive in comparison with other disciplines.
Justification for the arts in society and in higher education often takes the emotional side, and we hear how the arts makes the human complete, meeting emotional needs, rounding out the human being, relating to our sensitive side, providing cathartic release, allowing for human expression, and the list of benefits to the heart and soul are nearly endless. While all this is true and should not be marginalized, at the same time, these arguments somehow seem weak in light of the constant economic pressures of our culture. When funds are short, the arts get shorted. Such is reality and it is doubtful whether that will ever change. Donors enjoy supporting the arts, and most people value the arts, but when funds are allocated across several areas, the arts are generally not treated as they may deserve. And yet, in light of the inventory demanded, regardless of how the arts are perceived, most institutions have already provided a great deal of resources into the arts. Another way to look at this is that arts programs require assets that aid in production.
Are there ways to reduce inventory requirements without any loss of quality in arts programs in higher education? Unlike a business where the goal is to keep inventory moving, in the arts the inventory is capitalized for long-term minus depreciation without turnover. This converts initial expenditures into long-term assets reflected on an institutions financial statements. Other than those needs to address technological progress, maintenance, or new instruments, the inventory requires normal replacement in a given year. Yet because of the nature of progress in the arts, there must be constant attention given to equipment to meet the educational requirements. In the future, music, art, and theatre programs need to find ways to reduce or at least maintain the inventory while insisting on high quality programs.
This may require sharing of resources, utilizing technology to a high degree, regular maintenance, and shared facilities when possible. Such practices will require careful scheduling, advance planning, strategic goals, and targeted programs. In addition, careful use of facilities and resources could mean creative allocation of traditional equipment and an increase in technology and media in classrooms and labs. It would be wise to study the possibilities of combining certain assets in the arts, particular at the development stage, while keeping inventory well-maintained and controlled.
Music departments must have soundproof practice rooms, quality pianos that require frequent tuning, music stands, specialty chairs, libraries, instruments for concert playing as well as marching, uniforms, risers, temperature controlled facilities, acoustical requirements in concert halls and rooms, various sized classroom space to include desks, technology, and open areas. Music facilities must also have computer labs, recording technology, and multi-media equipment.
Music, art, and theatre facilities require significant storage areas, unusual requirements for safety (consider hearing health in music), and, although not necessarily required, decor that reflects the rich heritage of the arts as well as the progressive nature of the disciplines. When we consider the inventory needs and unique requirements for the arts, it should come as no surprise when budget managers and financial examiners become concerned with the fiscal demands of the arts in higher education. Although most of these initial expenses become long-term assets, there are also ongoing expenses related to inventory development to match program goals. To put it plainly, arts programs are expensive in comparison with other disciplines.
Justification for the arts in society and in higher education often takes the emotional side, and we hear how the arts makes the human complete, meeting emotional needs, rounding out the human being, relating to our sensitive side, providing cathartic release, allowing for human expression, and the list of benefits to the heart and soul are nearly endless. While all this is true and should not be marginalized, at the same time, these arguments somehow seem weak in light of the constant economic pressures of our culture. When funds are short, the arts get shorted. Such is reality and it is doubtful whether that will ever change. Donors enjoy supporting the arts, and most people value the arts, but when funds are allocated across several areas, the arts are generally not treated as they may deserve. And yet, in light of the inventory demanded, regardless of how the arts are perceived, most institutions have already provided a great deal of resources into the arts. Another way to look at this is that arts programs require assets that aid in production.
Are there ways to reduce inventory requirements without any loss of quality in arts programs in higher education? Unlike a business where the goal is to keep inventory moving, in the arts the inventory is capitalized for long-term minus depreciation without turnover. This converts initial expenditures into long-term assets reflected on an institutions financial statements. Other than those needs to address technological progress, maintenance, or new instruments, the inventory requires normal replacement in a given year. Yet because of the nature of progress in the arts, there must be constant attention given to equipment to meet the educational requirements. In the future, music, art, and theatre programs need to find ways to reduce or at least maintain the inventory while insisting on high quality programs.
This may require sharing of resources, utilizing technology to a high degree, regular maintenance, and shared facilities when possible. Such practices will require careful scheduling, advance planning, strategic goals, and targeted programs. In addition, careful use of facilities and resources could mean creative allocation of traditional equipment and an increase in technology and media in classrooms and labs. It would be wise to study the possibilities of combining certain assets in the arts, particular at the development stage, while keeping inventory well-maintained and controlled.
Friday, May 30, 2014
The Case for the Performance Major
Much has been discussed and written related to the problems of the music performance major in colleges and universities. Presenting an argument for the performance major based on employment statistics is futile and it is the responsibility of parents, counselors, advisers, and teachers to be clear on the job prospects of making a living in the area of musical performance. While it is difficult to examine the data, most studies seem to point to less than 5% of performance majors succeeding in their field beyond college. As small colleges seek to define their degree offerings, it must be noted that large conservatory type of experiences are also recognizing the job futility of the music performance major. From a purely pragmatic standpoint, it begs the question why the degree exists at all. Yet there is more to the story.
A college degree was never intended as a vocational training certificate for employment. Although there is plenty of justification for such a concept and many opportunities for such training, a college degree, particularly in classic liberal arts environments, is intended for broad-based philosophical experiences leading to white collar positions of leadership, teaching, medicine, sciences, writing, and the list continues. Granted the performance degree is considered more of a professional degree than it is a liberal arts degree, the delivery of the degree falls within the scope of most liberal arts institutions in that the requirements include a General Education core of classes outside of the music offerings. A student learns how to perform on a given instrument or voice but also learns basic other knowledge applicable to a variety of careers.
Given the economic challenges of employing the sheer number of performance majors that exist in our colleges and universities today, how can we continue to encourage or even justify the pursuit of such a credential? There may have been a time in history when the number of performance majors only slightly exceeded the number of full-time positions available, but that time is in the far past and to claim otherwise is to be unaware of the current musical dynamic. This does not mean there are few positions in music available after graduation, but, sadly, most of them are not within the design of curriculum pursued in the performance major. In other words, students may be preparing for a world that no longer exists, at least in the forms of the past. Why do we have the degree?
The answer lies in the rather nebulous but certainly valued concept of discipline. The pursuit of excellence in any field requires discipline that is relentless, unswerving, focused, and directed. In the military, discipline is demanded through cleanliness, precision, timing, and expectations. In sports, individual discipline serves the team through reaction time, perception, dedication to the goals, and the ability to make quick and decisive decisions. There are few skills more applicable to all areas than is the skill of discipline, fortitude, and stamina. It is through discipline that we learn to excel, to grow, and to achieve at a high level, reaching great heights of success and battling through the difficult and often bumpy road of life.
The pursuit of musical excellence demands personal discipline that includes individual practice, collective rehearsals, and cognitive study. Practice involves hours each day for many years in order to reach a level of excellence that is both competitive with other performers and expressively satisfying to listeners. Such achievement requires complete mastery of all technical demands such as notes, rhythms, dynamics, articulations, phrasing, and musical sensitivity. The hard work demanded from performance majors takes on significant proportions in relation to many other majors. While we all enjoy hearing a great performer on a stage, we must also be mindful of the years of dedicated effort to reach such musical artistry. Such mastery does not come easy and musical accomplishments, while mixed with talent, are the result of disciplined application of excellence over a period of many years.
But ability aside, and knowing the difficulty of earning a living as a professional performing musician, how does the performance major benefit the person? The answer lies in the pursuit of excellence through discipline as being transferable to other areas and professions. The act of total dedication to excellence, working out difficult passages, blending artistry with technical challenges, learning large amounts of literature, and preparing for performance forces a person's will and stamina to work together for a goal. For some that results in opportunities to perform in public and to make a living as a professional musician. For others that could mean using the fortitude it took to master a skill and turning that ability into something in business, medicine, law, the sciences, while maintaining the love of music.
In a recent graduation speech, Jim Carrey encouraged students to pursue their dreams and love what they do. In contrast, another speaker disagreed, admonishing people to pursue a discipline where they can find success. Somewhere in both these ideas, lies the truth for most people. Here are some links arguing for each side:
http://www.fastcompany.com/3026272/leadership-now/the-secrets-to-career-contentment-dont-follow-your-passion
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cal-newport/follow-your-passion-is-bizarre_b_4350869.html
http://www.businessinsider.com/andreessen-whatever-you-do-dont-follow-your-passion-2014-5
http://elitedaily.com/life/motivation/the-10-reasons-you-should-follow-your-passion-and-not-the-money/
Follow your passion completely but keep a plan B in mind that will still allow you to use your love in some kind of way. Mostly, apply yourself fully to the task and use relentless discipline to achieve excellence in all endeavors.
A college degree was never intended as a vocational training certificate for employment. Although there is plenty of justification for such a concept and many opportunities for such training, a college degree, particularly in classic liberal arts environments, is intended for broad-based philosophical experiences leading to white collar positions of leadership, teaching, medicine, sciences, writing, and the list continues. Granted the performance degree is considered more of a professional degree than it is a liberal arts degree, the delivery of the degree falls within the scope of most liberal arts institutions in that the requirements include a General Education core of classes outside of the music offerings. A student learns how to perform on a given instrument or voice but also learns basic other knowledge applicable to a variety of careers.
Given the economic challenges of employing the sheer number of performance majors that exist in our colleges and universities today, how can we continue to encourage or even justify the pursuit of such a credential? There may have been a time in history when the number of performance majors only slightly exceeded the number of full-time positions available, but that time is in the far past and to claim otherwise is to be unaware of the current musical dynamic. This does not mean there are few positions in music available after graduation, but, sadly, most of them are not within the design of curriculum pursued in the performance major. In other words, students may be preparing for a world that no longer exists, at least in the forms of the past. Why do we have the degree?
The answer lies in the rather nebulous but certainly valued concept of discipline. The pursuit of excellence in any field requires discipline that is relentless, unswerving, focused, and directed. In the military, discipline is demanded through cleanliness, precision, timing, and expectations. In sports, individual discipline serves the team through reaction time, perception, dedication to the goals, and the ability to make quick and decisive decisions. There are few skills more applicable to all areas than is the skill of discipline, fortitude, and stamina. It is through discipline that we learn to excel, to grow, and to achieve at a high level, reaching great heights of success and battling through the difficult and often bumpy road of life.
The pursuit of musical excellence demands personal discipline that includes individual practice, collective rehearsals, and cognitive study. Practice involves hours each day for many years in order to reach a level of excellence that is both competitive with other performers and expressively satisfying to listeners. Such achievement requires complete mastery of all technical demands such as notes, rhythms, dynamics, articulations, phrasing, and musical sensitivity. The hard work demanded from performance majors takes on significant proportions in relation to many other majors. While we all enjoy hearing a great performer on a stage, we must also be mindful of the years of dedicated effort to reach such musical artistry. Such mastery does not come easy and musical accomplishments, while mixed with talent, are the result of disciplined application of excellence over a period of many years.
But ability aside, and knowing the difficulty of earning a living as a professional performing musician, how does the performance major benefit the person? The answer lies in the pursuit of excellence through discipline as being transferable to other areas and professions. The act of total dedication to excellence, working out difficult passages, blending artistry with technical challenges, learning large amounts of literature, and preparing for performance forces a person's will and stamina to work together for a goal. For some that results in opportunities to perform in public and to make a living as a professional musician. For others that could mean using the fortitude it took to master a skill and turning that ability into something in business, medicine, law, the sciences, while maintaining the love of music.
In a recent graduation speech, Jim Carrey encouraged students to pursue their dreams and love what they do. In contrast, another speaker disagreed, admonishing people to pursue a discipline where they can find success. Somewhere in both these ideas, lies the truth for most people. Here are some links arguing for each side:
http://www.fastcompany.com/3026272/leadership-now/the-secrets-to-career-contentment-dont-follow-your-passion
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cal-newport/follow-your-passion-is-bizarre_b_4350869.html
http://www.businessinsider.com/andreessen-whatever-you-do-dont-follow-your-passion-2014-5
http://elitedaily.com/life/motivation/the-10-reasons-you-should-follow-your-passion-and-not-the-money/
Follow your passion completely but keep a plan B in mind that will still allow you to use your love in some kind of way. Mostly, apply yourself fully to the task and use relentless discipline to achieve excellence in all endeavors.
Thursday, May 22, 2014
Applied Music Teaching
The concept of apprenticeships has existed in history since the beginning of time when children were taught by their parents and eventually studied a craft or skill with a master. Identifying an interest or a talent is the first step followed by seeking out a teacher to help hone the skills and develop a young discipline into the next master. In movies we see great examples of this in Karate Kid, in Return of the Jedi, in Back to the Future, and in Rocky. During the Olympics we watched teacher after teacher remind students what to do and how to approach the event. We know many young builders working with master craftsmen to build houses, buildings, and entire communities. It is the teaching process and the benefits of individual learning cannot be overstated. One could argue that the classroom experience is but a shadow of the gain that could and does take place in individual instruction. While there is certainly something positive about collective experiences as well as community learning, every opportunity for one to one learning should applied due to its extensive gain.
This idea is especially true in music learning where a student seeks out a master musician to learn how to be a better musician with a measure of independence while reflecting the excellence of the teacher. Prior to the growth of the academy, young musicians found experienced musicians and sat at their feet learning how to be a performer, composer, leader. Dating back to the middle ages, Guilmant Machaut had students as did Giovanni Palestrina in the Renaissance. Johann S. Bach taught students throughout his illustrious career and we often read about Beethoven's harsh treatment of his students. With the growth of the acclaimed virtuoso, we find disciples of pianists, violinists, flautists, and many great singers beginning in the 18th century and growing rapidly into the 19th century.
The 20th century continued the idea of apprenticeships, professional training, and applied teaching in the academy. A precursory study of the teachers at the Paris Conservatory reveals a list strong in composition, theory, organ, piano and voice but slight in brass, woodwind, and percussion. A closer look, however, does reveal several teachers on various instruments but there is suspicion, albeit without evidence, that these teachers were both performers and teachers without full-time positions at the conservatory. Obviously respected as performers, students desired to learn from them through the Paris Conservatory system, and the Conservatory obliged by providing individualized instruction for the students.
This is a solid educational ideal and one that has withstood the test of time as an educational system. Individualized instruction is strong and is an essential part of becoming a master at a given task. Becoming a performing musician must include individualized instruction as a part of the training as a way to emulate a master while defining one's own style and expression. Students benefit from the careful attention and teachers generally enjoy the opportunity to send a discipline into the world of musical performance.
But a closer look at the economic problems of such a design begins to crumble in the face of reality. Studying with an individual is economically troubling for an institution concerned about efficiency, salaries, benefits, and mass production. Because the heritage of music training involves a heavy set of courses in applied music, institutions find themselves in a predicament of employing teachers working with very few students over the course of a semester. Compared to large classrooms of 30, 60, 90 or, in some cases, hundreds of students, applied individualized instruction in music is very costly. While the gain is in the level of instruction and the opportunity to reach students in ways that large classes cannot, at the same time, there is no questioning the economic burden that individualized instruction places on an institution.
Schools often rely on adjunct instruction to off-set the costs associated with applied teaching usually resulting in less loyalty to the school and potential resentment by the teacher. Admittedly, often adjunct teachers are currently "practitioners" in the field of music performance and can provide teaching insights that are current and relevant, which ironically contributes to the rise of adjunct instruction. Quality instruction (and its antithesis) is true regardless of the employment status of the teacher. That said, full-time faculty, accreditation issues aside, fulfill greater roles in the life of a university than do part-time faculty due to committee work, service to the institution, and research. Now we arrive at the opportunity--is it entirely fair to an institution to compensate a full-time wage to an instructor who teaches very few students during the course of a semester? If not, how do we maintain the tradition and integrity of the applied teaching experience while presenting an economically viable instructional model?
It will require a new model of teaching and one that will probably need to include technology, group instruction, reduced face to face time, altered performance expectations, and significant motivation of the student. It may also require rethinking the requirements for individual achievement as related to different degree programs. Web resources continue to multiply and not to take advantage of public domain sheet music, video instruction, curriculum lists, repertoire ideas, and nearly unlimited teaching techniques is to ignore a vibrant world of music education. Other possibilities include video conferencing, recorded files, and chat rooms. Applied teachers may need to consider ways to teach more students during the course of a week or two weeks without adding hours to the teaching time. Students will need to glean more and apply the lessons diligently, being thoroughly prepared for each lesson and benefit from the limited time or collective experience. These ideas and more will need to be embraced by institutions and individual teachers if the applied lesson is to remain as a teaching concept over time.
Those students demonstrating a need for individual instruction may need to pay more for that privilege or teachers may need to understand the institutional economic challenge of individualized instruction. Although nobody wishes to see a decline in quality of instruction nor quality of performance, there is little doubt that the historical model of one teacher for 12 to 18 students per semester is unsustainable for most schools carefully examining revenues and expenses. The institutions that demonstrate financial savings while increasing quality instruction will be the ones with the competitive edge. Such a concept will require taking a risk, carefully assessing the results, and maintaining the enthusiasm for teaching and learning.
This idea is especially true in music learning where a student seeks out a master musician to learn how to be a better musician with a measure of independence while reflecting the excellence of the teacher. Prior to the growth of the academy, young musicians found experienced musicians and sat at their feet learning how to be a performer, composer, leader. Dating back to the middle ages, Guilmant Machaut had students as did Giovanni Palestrina in the Renaissance. Johann S. Bach taught students throughout his illustrious career and we often read about Beethoven's harsh treatment of his students. With the growth of the acclaimed virtuoso, we find disciples of pianists, violinists, flautists, and many great singers beginning in the 18th century and growing rapidly into the 19th century.
The 20th century continued the idea of apprenticeships, professional training, and applied teaching in the academy. A precursory study of the teachers at the Paris Conservatory reveals a list strong in composition, theory, organ, piano and voice but slight in brass, woodwind, and percussion. A closer look, however, does reveal several teachers on various instruments but there is suspicion, albeit without evidence, that these teachers were both performers and teachers without full-time positions at the conservatory. Obviously respected as performers, students desired to learn from them through the Paris Conservatory system, and the Conservatory obliged by providing individualized instruction for the students.
This is a solid educational ideal and one that has withstood the test of time as an educational system. Individualized instruction is strong and is an essential part of becoming a master at a given task. Becoming a performing musician must include individualized instruction as a part of the training as a way to emulate a master while defining one's own style and expression. Students benefit from the careful attention and teachers generally enjoy the opportunity to send a discipline into the world of musical performance.
But a closer look at the economic problems of such a design begins to crumble in the face of reality. Studying with an individual is economically troubling for an institution concerned about efficiency, salaries, benefits, and mass production. Because the heritage of music training involves a heavy set of courses in applied music, institutions find themselves in a predicament of employing teachers working with very few students over the course of a semester. Compared to large classrooms of 30, 60, 90 or, in some cases, hundreds of students, applied individualized instruction in music is very costly. While the gain is in the level of instruction and the opportunity to reach students in ways that large classes cannot, at the same time, there is no questioning the economic burden that individualized instruction places on an institution.
Schools often rely on adjunct instruction to off-set the costs associated with applied teaching usually resulting in less loyalty to the school and potential resentment by the teacher. Admittedly, often adjunct teachers are currently "practitioners" in the field of music performance and can provide teaching insights that are current and relevant, which ironically contributes to the rise of adjunct instruction. Quality instruction (and its antithesis) is true regardless of the employment status of the teacher. That said, full-time faculty, accreditation issues aside, fulfill greater roles in the life of a university than do part-time faculty due to committee work, service to the institution, and research. Now we arrive at the opportunity--is it entirely fair to an institution to compensate a full-time wage to an instructor who teaches very few students during the course of a semester? If not, how do we maintain the tradition and integrity of the applied teaching experience while presenting an economically viable instructional model?
It will require a new model of teaching and one that will probably need to include technology, group instruction, reduced face to face time, altered performance expectations, and significant motivation of the student. It may also require rethinking the requirements for individual achievement as related to different degree programs. Web resources continue to multiply and not to take advantage of public domain sheet music, video instruction, curriculum lists, repertoire ideas, and nearly unlimited teaching techniques is to ignore a vibrant world of music education. Other possibilities include video conferencing, recorded files, and chat rooms. Applied teachers may need to consider ways to teach more students during the course of a week or two weeks without adding hours to the teaching time. Students will need to glean more and apply the lessons diligently, being thoroughly prepared for each lesson and benefit from the limited time or collective experience. These ideas and more will need to be embraced by institutions and individual teachers if the applied lesson is to remain as a teaching concept over time.
Those students demonstrating a need for individual instruction may need to pay more for that privilege or teachers may need to understand the institutional economic challenge of individualized instruction. Although nobody wishes to see a decline in quality of instruction nor quality of performance, there is little doubt that the historical model of one teacher for 12 to 18 students per semester is unsustainable for most schools carefully examining revenues and expenses. The institutions that demonstrate financial savings while increasing quality instruction will be the ones with the competitive edge. Such a concept will require taking a risk, carefully assessing the results, and maintaining the enthusiasm for teaching and learning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)