Sound of Music Revisited

Recently attended a community production of The Sound of Music on stage. The impressive cast was accompanied by a full orchestra, well-designed sets, professional lighting, and constant attention to sound balancing. It was an exciting and profound performance and reminded me of how all the elements came together to form one of the greatest musicals in history--The Sound of Music!

Before I go on, I will give a nod to those naysayers who find the musical to be sappy, cheesy, fluffy, and weak in substance and reality. The beauty of the setting, the bad guys takeover, the family that started singing again, the escape over the mountains helped by nuns, the cute children, the wealthy captain, the sudden love, it all is a bit much for those who prefer grittier, realistic fare. But those of you who reference it as The Sound of Mucus, your opinions are your own and do not do justice to this masterpiece of emotional expression, artistic achievement, and lyrical musical writing.

Having seen the movie over a dozen times, conducted 15 performances, and played horn on 8 performances, I am quite familiar with the similarities and differences between the film and the stage versions. The film is an improvement although I do enjoy the musical nuns in the stage version. But the puppet show on Lonely Goatherd is marvelous and definitely missed in the stage version. The drama and the love story is not quite as defined in the stage version and we are never sure if the Captain left Frau Schrader due to loving Maria or disagreement with her politics. Edelweiss takes on greater symbolism in the film and the lines are generally smoother without ambiguity.

Yet no matter whether one sees the movie or the live production, it is a winner. Terrific songs with harmonic interest, engaging melodies, clever lyrics, and demanding vocal ranges. A story of love, family, Nazis, history, joy, fear, and hints of religion, politics, beauty, parenting, stubbornness, mischievous, and finally courage. It has all the elements needed for success with the film including outstanding performances in acting and singing. Only the coldest of hearts can ignore the "you brought music back into the house." Or the rich song "Something Good." All these and more make Sound of Music timeless and a musical for all ages. There is something in it for everyone, perhaps a tension or a song that hits the spot.

So even you tired of Sound of Music people out there owe it to yourself to go see the stage version and watch the movie. It is one of those musicals that makes the world a better place and will put a smile on your face and a little warmth in your heart. Toss out the cynicism and enjoy it for what it is...pure joy and meaning.

Zip Line Euphoria

Fishing with no luck and adding to my sunburn, I decided to experience the zip line that hung over the lake like a delicious chocolate bar dangling in front of me waiting for me to grab it. Expense aside, and it was on the pricey side, I enjoy the euphoria that accompanies zip lines. The illusion of control of the world as nature is conquered is both frightening and liberating as you speed down a cable to the landing point and glance at the world below. While you feel in charge and powerful, reigning over the land, in truth you are completely at the mercy of the harness and the cable, resulting in total powerlessness. Maybe it is the Yertle the Turtle syndrome where you want to be higher than everybody else but in the end you could end up in the mud!

Perhaps it is the sensation-seeking side of wanting thrills or maybe my enjoyment, almost obsession, with being outdoors and feeling the wind on my face. Whatever the reason, I love riding zip lines and plan to do more. This particular zip line went over a large lake and had no braking system on it at all. Coming in quite fast, I had the momentary fear that the large spring at the end would not be able to stop my ride. But it did with a strong jolt and suddenly my moment of speeding along a cable over a lake was over. It was great fun and I am ready to go again!

Imagine a world where we could zip from place to place without cars, where we walk from station to station, zip across town or even from town to town or across the country at high speeds. Rather than being enclosed in a plane, train, or automobile, we all benefit from the air, from nature, from being active and outdoors. Onward to more zip lines, more fun, and more euphoria!

Ideas for the future in higher education

Having spent much of my career in small private institutions, I wish to articulate 6 broad goals or strategies for the future with sub-targets within the broad goals. I will expand on these in subsequent blogs. These are in no particular order and are simply, and obviously, my opinion without any kind of endorsement. Institutional goals are different from individual goals without being entirely exclusive. No institutional goal has merit without individual and collective effort, and no goal can be met without acceptance. Regardless of the disclaimer, the following are based on experience and perception of trends and institutional needs.

1) We must embrace technology completely and comprehensively, 2) We need to encourage and support experiential learning, 3) We need to allow for student choice while focusing on relevance, 4) We need to reduce costs, 5) We need to create new programs and lose old ones, and 6) We should support student and faculty research.

As in all matters, integrity must rule the day and, as alluded earlier, nothing can be accomplished without belief in the target goal. Yet there is no doubt that for higher education to continue to thrive and make a difference in lives while making an impact on society and culture, it must adapt to a quickly changing world. The college experience is an invaluable one and treasured by people throughout their lives. We continue to cheer for the mascots and continue to be proud of our Alma mater, always desiring victories on the field and in the classroom. But we cannot operate in the same way, doing the same things we have always done, replicating our own collegiate experiences, hoping our students will follow in our footsteps. It is time to take a risk within the boundaries of our mission, accreditation, integrity, and the community we wish to design.

The mission of the institution is central to all we do and should be fully embraced by all constituents, driving the institution forward in its curriculum, its delivery, and its quality. The mission should not inhibit creativity nor stifle innovation, but instead should serve as a catalyst for development and improvement through higher expectations by nurturing an environment of creativity and unbridled ideas. These higher expectations, achieved through innovation and progression of curriculum, have the ability to transform not only learning but the institution itself.

Roll up your sleeves and let's get to work.

The Liberal Arts Institution

Sometimes cultural attitudes shift in thought and philosophy, reshaping the way we think and the way we respond to certain events be they sociological, spiritual, or economic. I recall as a child growing up in the 60s, many young adults had an "anti-war" mentality that resulted in a type of disdain for anyone who would enlist in the military or even accept the draft. The "heroes" of the time were not those fighting for human freedom and trying to end the tyranny but rather those who evaded the draft and carried peace signs. Returning troops were sometimes booed and hissed as they disembarked from a plane upon their return from the fighting. Students talked naively and inanely about an "immoral" war and the benefits of isolationism.

Yet time marched onward, as it is wont to do, and now society holds in high regard those brave men and women who fought and currently fight for our country and for our freedoms we enjoy. We honor and elevate the military as it defends our country, fights for democracy, and wars against terrorism. We as a society have changed and will continue to do so in some way. Those not in favor of military service remain silent. Cultural shifting gives us more tolerance for differences, public concern about the environment, less dogma, awareness of global trends, more medical breakthroughs, fewer physical books, more knowledge, social connectivity, and maybe less dependence on one person. Technology provides, at least to an extent, the knowledge needed to catapult our interests to another level.

Being a hat wearer, I have noticed pictures from the first half of the twentieth century showing that most men wore hats. It is always a pleasure to walk into an old building and find a hat rack. Today students often wear caps but they leave them on in a building and there are rarely, if ever, hat racks. Society changed and the bald, hat wearing man is now discriminated against and has no place to hang his hat! But we will arise and our time will come again. With our ascension into our rightful place, we will see the return of the hat rack (actually I kind of doubt it will happen!).

The growth of the non-denominational church came partly in response to denominational restrictions and the frequent parlaying of theological ideals within each church. Growing weary of such dissension, people began to form their own churches apart from denominational association. While the loss in collective giving has been painful, for many the freedom is worth the loss. Such activity is an example of shifting cultural changes in spiritual formation.

In higher education, we are in a change of some kind with a multitude of opinions and shifting attitudes toward education and the future. Many will argue that college can no longer serve its liberal arts practices and that all training should be professional and career-oriented. Others hold steadfastly to the liberal arts concept of higher education that respects the well-rounded thinker, the graduate with knowledge in many areas, the student who contributes to society through refinement, who recognizes the heritage of our world but who possesses the skill to avoid past mistakes, the person whose mind and body have the discipline for facing the future with courage, conviction, and productivity. All these goals and more comprise the purpose of the liberal arts education.

But the flurry of professional and technical schools now threatens the core of a liberal arts education. Students, their parents, even politicians are no longer focusing on the benefits of a broad-based education that includes history, math, science, English, arts, philosophy, and physical well being. Instead, the concern seems to be gainful employment upon graduation and the skills needed for career success. In this case, the customer has moved from the faculty member to the student to the employer. Do we in traditional liberal arts institutions retain our heritage of the liberal arts that goes back to Greek philosophers and forms the core of what it means to be an educated person? Or do we discard all that liberal arts represents and simply teach the skills and knowledge required for a chosen profession? The old adage of teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime can be argued on either side of the equation. Should we give him the knowledge needed to fish, hunt, farm, cook? Should we teach him to fish so that he works to alleviate world hunger, invest resources, contribute positively to society? Does he need to understand the environment, physics, biology, business, the arts, his own health, the chemical makeup of fish, perhaps other languages in case he encounters people from foreign countries?

The question, however, is what to do? What do students need to know for their future? Specific skills or broad knowledge or both? Where will we land on this controversy? Will we abandon the educational practices that have served higher education so well or do we desperately hold on to a model that no longer is effective? Is there a balance?

The road to truth is often painful but clear and it seems to me that the answer lies in an eclectic and guided curriculum with a directed and comprehensive invoking of technology. Colleges must be nimble, holding to the ideals of what an education means but respecting employers' need for skilled employees and entrepreneurship. Obviously supply and demand will ultimately rule the day and will shape the forces of college curriculum, but meanwhile it is time for colleges and employers to recognize those areas that technology can provide and those areas where face to face learning needs to happen. Not entirely sure of the answer, I believe a reduction in broad liberal arts courses, increased choice in classes, and professional tracks toward employment are the trajectories of the colleges of the future. Thrown in the mix will be more use of technology, online courses, video, experiential learning, and interactive education.

Rather than fighting the change and insisting on the past, colleges must embrace the change if they are to survive. Schools with substantial endowments will continue the journey established by the past, but other schools must find new ways to educate students for the future. Such is the way of cultural change.

Bach, Financials, and Running

Back in the running mode, I try to hit about 20 miles per week with Saturdays being the long run day. The recent weight gain has impacted my distance and speed, and I often find myself walking in the middle of the run. Yet, risking imperiousness, I will admit to having a resting heart rate of about 60 which is supposedly good for a 54 year old man. Running continues to be euphoric and it is hard to describe the glorious feeling of the wind on my face as I pound the pavement and breathe quickly. The sounds I hear, besides my own exertion, are generally pleasant and include birds, dogs, cars, sometimes children playing, and the wind as it blows through the trees. Sound continues to be meaningful to me and I often wish I had the power to hear the ants walk, the spiders spin their webs, the birds fly, and the clouds move. Waxing poetically, however, about the world is not my intention on this fine morning. Rather I wish to address what kind of music matches what kind of book.

When running, I often listen to audio books. I generally listen to fiction followed by non-fiction with most books lasting approximately 12 hours which gives me around 2-3 weeks per book, considering a few days here and there to listen to the sounds of world instead. Adventure fiction is great for running whereas non-fiction with facts is less propelling but more interesting than fiction. After finishing "The Girl on the Train" which I found to be a dull story in spite of its popularity, I downloaded "Financial Literacy: Finding Your Way in the Financial Markets." It is an informative read (or rather listen) and I am enjoying it. What is perplexing to me however is the opening music for the book was a Brandenburg Concerto by Johann Sebastian Bach. Not that it was not thoroughly enjoyable and "hit the spot" as I started my long Saturday run. The counterpoint, textures, joyous harmony, complexity, and aesthetic satisfaction of the music was the perfect choice for me this fine morning as I ran and learned about the financial markets.

But why Bach? In what ways does the music of Bach set up or foreshadow or represent a book on finance? Is it that people who read or in my case listen to this book are generally older, more educated, sophisticated people, or maybe old fuddy duddies? That sounds as absurd as is assuming Bach is for older academics only. Is it that the complexity of Bach including his brilliant use of contrapuntal devices to add form, tension, and structure to his music match that of a book designed to explain the complexity of the financial markets? Maybe the music was picked randomly and anything would have been fine...say a Mahler symphony or something by Philip Glass. Or perhaps the opening music could have been disco or reggae or a rap on finance? Maybe this was just a legal decision, after all Bach's music is in public domain and does not require permission or ownership to perform.

Perhaps the music should have been hard rock or Jurassic Park or maybe some opera or Johnny Cash? Is the use of Bach a sign of the revitalization of "classical music" in our culture? Or maybe its rarity in popular culture sets it apart as unique and special, signifying the special qualities of the book? Frankly, I am not sure why Bach was selected as the music to begin the audio book on finance, but I did enjoy it.

Yesterday is Gone and so is the Woodshed

Being an avid anti-luddite and therefore embracing new technology on every level possible, my profession, however, borders on the archaic, admittedly charming, world of an age long gone. Not that this something negative necessarily for in fact I do miss certain practices of the past. I miss having black and white television, 3 channels, no remote, physical encyclopedias on the shelves, cars with steel dashboards (that is another story and the reason I have a scar above my eye!), record players, dial phones on the wall, hymnals, coffee percolating, maps in hand, and a slide rule for calculations. I also miss being "pill-free" but that is again a separate topic!

But the world marches forward and the wind blows freely in spite of our efforts to control it. Harnessing the wind and using it positively is one thing but stopping it is another. Progress cannot be and should not be inhibited, particularly by our individual preferences for that which exists in a previous time. Not that there is anything wrong at all about preferences. After all there is no doubt that preferences shape our personal existence. A person is certainly welcome to prefer riding a horse or studying a Rubens or balancing a checkbook or taking a bath once a month (a practice from earlier centuries), but to thwart the preferences of others through active campaigns against progress is patently unfair and in fact a worthless endeavor.

I will say, however, that in a way I appreciate the Luddites of the world, people who hold on to a past practice or a perceived simpler existence. People who remain suspicious of our technologically driven world. Those are the ones who keep some of us in check and prevent us from going all in on technology. Sometimes I do appreciate someone tapping the brakes and reminding me of the very few benefits of the printed page or the inevitable "lecture" containing facts (facts that incidentally are available with a couple of clicks of a mouse). I always smile at the phrase "the good old days" when life was better without all the technology surrounding us.

Yet I read an article asking the question, do we really want to return to a time without a cell phone or unlimited television stations or computers? Do we really want to make coffee over an outdoor grill everyday? http://tmagazine.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/05/andrew-ohagan-technology/. We may have become dependent on the cell phone but, frankly, I am glad and do not wish to return to a previous time without it. Communication is instant and fun. Banking and money management are more accurate. Writing is definitely easier as is shopping. Finding places to eat or even vacation is a snap and even knowing the best roads to avoid traffic problems is amazing.

As Gus McRae says in Lonesome Dove, "yesterday's gone and you can't get it back." While you can learn from yesterday, you cannot return to it, nor would you really want to do so. It is time to be current, contemporary, vital, and progressive. Admittedly this is at times a difficult requirement. I recall teaching a student and I told her she needed to "woodshed" a passage. But as I thought through my suggestion, it occurred to me that she might not have fully understand what I said. I looked at her and asked, "Do you know what woodshed means?" She said no. I then proceeded to explain the history of the woodshed and how it has come to mean hard work or improvement. My words, however, sounded hollow and old-fashioned, even to me. How often do we use archaic language that has little to no meaning to other people? How often do we invoke yesterday to explain today?

I believe we tend to live in the past, reflecting on past mistakes, past successes, old challenges, hurts, joys, and preferences. We carry our history on our sleeve and engage it whenever we don't fully understand the present or exactly how to deal with the current situation. For many that means fighting for the "old days", whereas for others it means refusing to accept a new way. While this is not a problem necessarily by itself, it becomes troublesome when the lack of individual progress impacts the collective need to press forward.

In a way, however, I don't believe it matters in the end for time and progress will happen regardless of what we think or prefer. Entrepreneurship in action mitigates the efforts of the naysayers and those marching forward will eventually crush the efforts of those who only live for yesterday.

Administrative Yips

A consequence of the current cultural clash in higher education and the arts is the dreaded disease known as the administrative yips. In sports an athlete who develops the yips loses some physiological skill that is necessary for success. This could be a baseball player who loses the ability to follow through on a throw or to move to his right or make a level swing. In bowling it could be someone who suddenly cannot take the proper number of steps. When a player gets the yips, he or she can no longer function the same way and either must conquer the weakness, find another way, or do something different outside of the discipline. Often the yips occur in sports following an injury or a mistake on the field as well as having to face an formidable enemy of some kind or other.

Administrative yips manifest in a lack of confidence in making sound decisions. In the current climate of concern over economics, quantity, quality, technology, personnel, progress, integrity, legalities, privacy, classicism, modernism, and the unending responsibility to lead positively, it is no wonder that administrators often lose confidence and wonder which way to turn. All it takes are two concurrent decisions that made a negative impact and suddenly the yips set in and the next decision feels uncertain. This is followed by insecurity, doubt, and a kind of fear of the unknown, leading to depression, confusion, and finally administrative impotence. Administrators floundering in a quagmire of doubt may give up or emphasize that which does not matter, giving themselves authority over trivial, inconsequential concerns that in analysis are banal without substance.

I recall at a previous position being concerned over the lack of students' ability to articulate a musical thought or idea. Yet I was also keenly aware of how requiring all graduating seniors to present a public speech on a musical topic for all the faculty was difficult for scheduling and for convenience of faculty at an involved time of year. I further hoped for a way to document and assess the content and delivery of the 5 minute speech. After thinking through these issues, I had the brilliant idea for students to prepare their speech and deliver it to a video that would then be distributed to all the faculty. The faculty would then watch the video at their own convenience and assign an objective grade. We then had a record of the speech, faculty had time to assess it, and students did not feel the pressure of delivery at a public event. It all made sense but was a dismal flop. Faculty did not watch it, students did a poor job, and nobody had respect for the process. Why?

One problem was that I did not get faculty buy-in for the process. Another problem was that the faculty did not live in a digital world and preferred face-to-face live teaching. My efforts to help their own schedule did not resonate with them because they did not believe in the value of the process nor in the system. To their way of thinking, if something is worth doing, it must be worth doing face to face in real time. But this little situation that happened many years ago, gave me the administrative yips. After all, if you feed a dog and he bites you, you may not be as anxious to feed him again!

Now many years later, I am suffering again from the yips due to the complexity of the semester, the frequent questioning of my decisions, and the many things out of my control. Like Steve Sax who could no longer throw the ball to first base (he did overcome the problem eventually), I cannot seem to make my decisions reach the goal. Maybe it is a slump of some kind or maybe just a bump in the road, but it feels like the yips. Objectively I do know that most administrators suffer from the yips occasionally and I also know that not all decisions will be the right ones, but emotionally I do not like to lose. And maybe, just maybe, that is the crux of the yips...pride and bruised ego.

I suppose admitting there is a problem is the first step toward a cure and I have taken that first step. Now for the next step...seek Godly wisdom, be decisive, trust my instincts, and move forward positively. A few more days of the yips and I am ready to get in the game again! Here is a question for anyone reading. Have you ever had the yips?

Packages, Music, and Men

Received a package from Amazon yesterday and after opening the box, realized I had more to open. Being a big fan of Amazon and championing their system at every opportunity, I was excited to read the words "frustration-free packaging." My frustration over the packaging we deal with in our society is often at a high point as I open paper towels, socks, medicine bottles, a new shirt, yogurt, and virtually everything one purchases at a store. Particularly with a thumb that no longer functions as well, opening anything is a significant challenge usually requiring a careful use of scissors so as not to damage the product. The time wasted opening items must equal at least a month over a lifetime!

But much to my excitement, the package claimed it was "frustration-free packaging." Diving in with a smile on my face and joy in my countenance, I began opening the package. I'll give them this, it did not require scissors and it was much less frustrating than packages one gets at Walmart or Dillards. But it was not frustration free and I once again felt the pain of cardboard as I push and pulled to get the items out. I suppose, however, that true frustration-free packaging to me would mean someone walked up to me and handed me the item which I would then begin using without any preparation. I guess I will accept the idea of "less frustration" in the packaging of Amazon products. After all, it is still a terrific company.

Studying the life of Stevie Wonder and thinking through musicians from the past and present, I am a little concerned about two trends in music training. One is that fewer students are taking piano lessons for any extended time and two is that fewer boys seem to be involved in music apart from playing in band, and then sometimes for only a short time. I have no empirical evidence to support this claim and would like to be proven wrong, but it does seem to be true by all appearances. When did music become a "feminine" activity? Is this true for all the arts? Males do sports and girls do arts? This makes no sense to me and makes me wonder if our "football" based culture is somehow contributing to this absurd stereo-type. Yet, even as I type, I have to believe it is a temporary cultural change that will not be sustained. Art belongs to everyone, male and female, just as sports also belongs to the masses.

Meanwhile to all those artists out there, whether that be in visual art, music, or theatre, I urge you to continue your journey. There is a place for you in the world but be mindful of shifting attitudes toward the arts. They are valued but maybe not in the same way they once were. The wise and nimble artist stays current with trends while seeking after integrity in all things. Mostly, let's move away from any kind of notion that the arts are a "feminine" endeavor. What an absurd idea.

City vs. Country

Having lived for 12 years in the country on 13 acres but now living in the city surrounded by houses on either side, I can find merits for both. In favor of city living: mail service and trash service. We can now walk down a short footpath to our nice mailbox and pickup the mail each day. This beats having to go into town to the post office and retrieve the weeks mail from the box. Regarding trash service, it certainly became a chore to haul the trash to the landfill or to once a week roll the large green receptacle down the long driveway to the street. We now have a very short trip from the house to the street where it is picked up twice a week. Tax dollars working for the residents! But, wait, tax dollars...yikes. We are paying nearly three times as much for taxes as we ever did in the country.

We can now get to the stores, the restaurants, the mall, the theatre and work in short order without much preparation and without undue and complicated scheduling. When we want to see friends or have a social outing, a call or two and we are together enjoying a meal, a concert, or a movie. Great fun and certainly "modern" in our progressive society. Church is close, parks are near, the airport is 5 minutes away, museums, galleries, and there is no denying the value of having a doctor and hospital nearby. All these and more make city life the preferred residential choice.

In the country we had skunks, snakes, raccoons, rodents, wild cats, wild dogs, coyotes, drought, dust, scorpions, wasps, and the ever present fear of wildfires. I kept a gun and knife handy and never stopped trying to get rid of cactus and mesquites that constantly threatened to take over what little grass struggled to live in our front and back yards.

So why in the world do I miss country living? The space, the sky, the quiet, the solitude, the rugged individualism, the removal from society, all these and more contribute to my slight discontent with city living. Living in the country, I never felt the desire to get away or take a vacation, but in the city, the idea of going somewhere else is compelling. Home, of course, is where the heart finds joy, but in the city, your home is a stone's toss to your neighbor's home. In the country, feel free to throw a stone far away, there are no neighbors who can see nor care. In the city, the neighbors may not know you but they are curious and are constantly watching your yard for a hint of neglect or some kind of nefarious activity.

Yes, I miss the solitude and the space. Conveniences aside, the magic and charm of the country is still in me, and while I love my home, perhaps one day I'll live in a place that contains the best of both worlds...a home in the country with the city nearby.

How to Build a Gas Station

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

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

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

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

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

Symphony by Great Composer

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

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

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

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

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

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

Minor or Major?

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.