Not sure of the personality trait nor of the identified value system, but I have little to no need of living in the past and repeating the events that happened yesterday. Once it is done, it is over and it signals a time to move forward. Having been a part of successful artistic events throughout my career, I do not desire to replicate them nor return to a different era. This does not mean I do not miss certain things about yesterday or even 50 years ago, but I have the kind of personality that gives a nod to the past while moving forward to tomorrow.
Great performances were meaningful, special, and enriching not only to me but hopefully all present. Yet I never, ever listen to a recording of myself either performing or conducting. I do not even enjoy hearing the music I wrote again. I prefer, instead, to create something new, to lead something new, to imagine the next thing.
Not being a hoarder, when it is time to get rid of excess, I do so. Feeling no need to keep old items no longer used, I am completely comfortable throwing things away or giving things away. At times slightly sentimental, particularly involving my family, and I do recognize the events from the past shape our future, I prefer to practice an objective and creative approach to the future. As an amateur historian, I am intrigued with events of the past and how those set forth a culture that impacts us today. Yet I have no desire revisit those events other than acknowledging they did occur. When it was time to throw away my high school letter jacket, I did so. When my record collection no longer had value, I got rid of it. Objects are simply objects and have no legitimate value other than what they could mean to someone else. Thus I do struggle with my book collection, although I anticipate a day all the books will be given away.
It is not a matter of judgment of right or wrong to live in the past, it is more that I do not wish to reflect on it nor to allow it to govern my thought processing. Unfortunately, this makes me different I suspect and hard to understand. It also makes it difficult to understand others who do live in the past. As a Dean of Fine Arts, I have great respect for art music of the past, for the composers who wrote the beautiful music, and for the artist achievements that make our world today better, richer, and give it all meaning. But at the same time, it is done and I believe it is time for a new canon of literature. Beating the drum for new expressions, for human creativity, for imagination and innovation, I often find myself in a precarious position of teaching the old while championing the new.
Time to move forward, to create and to dream of the next thing. Love history but do not live in it. Respect past achievements but do not rely on them. Find joy where it is now not where it was yesterday.
Sunday, August 27, 2017
Saturday, July 29, 2017
Doctoral Work in Business
Immersed in doctoral work, I have very little time to blog. Yet I find myself with a little time this evening and want to express some thoughts. Doctoral work in business is not necessarily difficult for me although it is quite time consuming. Constant research, writing, and papers due nearly every week. Not entirely sure if pursuing this degree is wise nor am I even sure why I am seeking yet another doctorate in a disparate field. After all, many would say I have arrived as a music administrator, serving as a Dean in a reputable but fairly small university. Mostly I enjoy learning new things and being seen as an eclectic polymath with a wide variety of interests.
I suppose there is a part of me that is seeking something new in the peak of my career. Music has been and will likely continue to be my life, defining me to virtually everyone I encounter including my own family. With constant songs in my head and an ability to analyze music of all types and genres in nearly an instant, being a musician is natural for me. Yet several years ago I began to examine market trends and to study large and small corporations. Perhaps it was my interest in the stock market and investing that led to a desire to know more about why some companies fail while others grow. And as I watch companies grow, I have seen the discipline of music as I learned it in school, decline.
But I am also annoyed that non-musicians tend to think of musicians as one-sided people. Some may look at musicians as oddities, strange people who can only do one thing. Others may actually have a great deal of respect for musicians but neither do they understand their interest nor talent. Mostly I suspect that non-musicians see musicians as brainless fools playing games with sound. Almost as though we are little toys found in stores at Christmas. Yes, I know this is overstated but not a lot. It is not that I seek respect for my musical skills but, rather, I seek respect for what I know in other disciplines.
So to that end, I am now pursuing a doctor of business administration. Coursework so far has included research techniques, global management, capital budgeting and financial analysis, and now corporate structure. Is it applicable to my profession as a music administrator? Not necessarily. Yet I do sincerely enjoy learning more about the business world. What a fascinating world that actually shapes everything about our economy. Not that I am a great financier, but I do know many things about it and can hold my own in basic accounting, budgeting, marketing, and finance. Using data to make decisions is much preferred over music instincts and constantly thinking of revenue over expenses is easier than deciding how to phrase or working to play the passage perfectly.
Yes I love being a musician but I also enjoy being a business person. Both worlds entice me and both worlds can work in harmony and in congruence provided the musical world begins to react as a vital economy rather than some kind of elite commodity that only a few have a right in which to participate. No longer can we, as musicians, operate in a bubble of our own preference. It is time to accept the multi-billion dollar world of music as being a vital economic force and one that shapes and directs our culture in infinite ways. Abandon the elitism and embrace the totality of music in the world.
I suppose there is a part of me that is seeking something new in the peak of my career. Music has been and will likely continue to be my life, defining me to virtually everyone I encounter including my own family. With constant songs in my head and an ability to analyze music of all types and genres in nearly an instant, being a musician is natural for me. Yet several years ago I began to examine market trends and to study large and small corporations. Perhaps it was my interest in the stock market and investing that led to a desire to know more about why some companies fail while others grow. And as I watch companies grow, I have seen the discipline of music as I learned it in school, decline.
But I am also annoyed that non-musicians tend to think of musicians as one-sided people. Some may look at musicians as oddities, strange people who can only do one thing. Others may actually have a great deal of respect for musicians but neither do they understand their interest nor talent. Mostly I suspect that non-musicians see musicians as brainless fools playing games with sound. Almost as though we are little toys found in stores at Christmas. Yes, I know this is overstated but not a lot. It is not that I seek respect for my musical skills but, rather, I seek respect for what I know in other disciplines.
So to that end, I am now pursuing a doctor of business administration. Coursework so far has included research techniques, global management, capital budgeting and financial analysis, and now corporate structure. Is it applicable to my profession as a music administrator? Not necessarily. Yet I do sincerely enjoy learning more about the business world. What a fascinating world that actually shapes everything about our economy. Not that I am a great financier, but I do know many things about it and can hold my own in basic accounting, budgeting, marketing, and finance. Using data to make decisions is much preferred over music instincts and constantly thinking of revenue over expenses is easier than deciding how to phrase or working to play the passage perfectly.
Yes I love being a musician but I also enjoy being a business person. Both worlds entice me and both worlds can work in harmony and in congruence provided the musical world begins to react as a vital economy rather than some kind of elite commodity that only a few have a right in which to participate. No longer can we, as musicians, operate in a bubble of our own preference. It is time to accept the multi-billion dollar world of music as being a vital economic force and one that shapes and directs our culture in infinite ways. Abandon the elitism and embrace the totality of music in the world.
Sunday, March 19, 2017
More thoughts on the NEA
Not necessarily wanting to be a contrarian, I must continue my thoughts on the National Endowment for the Arts. It does serve a public good and is in the business of providing financial support and public advocacy for the arts. No doubt that many of the grants have made a positive contribution to the arts globally as well as locally. When the NEA gives money to the states to disperse through various state-supported grant programs, those funds go to the local communities to advance the cause of the arts. How can this be a bad thing? So why am I against the very support that is intended to raise arts awareness and provide financial resources for artists and artistic endeavors?
Rather than denigrating or exclaiming for or against any organization, we should, instead, examine its actions over a ten-year period and make a decision based on evidence. Once the reader knows how tax dollars are spent, then he can decide if this is a worthwhile organization. Here is the search form for an analytical study: https://apps.nea.gov/grantsearch/. While most readers will find one or two grants that fit one's personal interest, most grants are specialized art forms for small audience consumption.
Keep in mind that the term "arts" represents a vast amount of experiences from the visual and aural world. "Arts" could mean stand-up comedy, dramatic readings, poetry, literature, opera, drama, jazz, blues, rap, hip-hop, rock, folk, orchestras, busking, dancing, film, media, singing, television, graffiti, design, architecture, decorating, quilting, crafts, even culinary presentation. When one considers support for creative endeavors, the only real limit is the human spirit for something new. Add in historical studies, ethnic emphases, demographic alternatives, social considerations, and audience responses, we find a tremendous amount of artistic possibilities for support.
Is it art if nobody is there to experience it? (I know, it sounds like the old tree falling question). If the NEA supports that which requires funds for its existence, it probably funds artistic experiences that are limited in audience response. This makes logical sense. No need for the NEA to provide funds for the musical Hamilton or for a Lady Gaga concert. The NEA looks for those worthwhile art experiences that will likely not garner a large audience but are "worthwhile" in spite of the lack of public financial support.
The conclusion, therefore, is that our tax dollars go to events that are generally not popular. If they were popular, then no support would be required. If I make a cake that is lousy and nobody purchases it, then I am saddened by my poor effort and will try to improve next time or perhaps give up on my cake making ability. While it feels cheap to relegate art to a commodity, is it really that different? Should our art find a public audience, and if not, should it not go the way of all bad art?
Market forces determine so much of our world including our clothes, media, cars, jobs, interests, tastes, and the list continues. Why is art different?
The only valid argument, which is distasteful, is that "we" who are artists, "we" who determine the value of the arts, "we" who make the decisions for what to fund, are the knowledgeable elite who know what is best for society and culture. This is the same weak argument that once prevented the Holy Bible from being in the hands of the people. The same poor argument that causes totalitarianism, demagoguery, power abuse, self-proclaimed experts, and ultimately enslavement.
The NEA, for all its good intentions, may need to start listening to the people. This is not a diatribe against the NEA but it is a large demand for the arts to remain alive and in the hands of a public that just may know best over time. It seems almost dangerous to rely on the so called artistic elites to decide what is best for our culture.
Rather than denigrating or exclaiming for or against any organization, we should, instead, examine its actions over a ten-year period and make a decision based on evidence. Once the reader knows how tax dollars are spent, then he can decide if this is a worthwhile organization. Here is the search form for an analytical study: https://apps.nea.gov/grantsearch/. While most readers will find one or two grants that fit one's personal interest, most grants are specialized art forms for small audience consumption.
Keep in mind that the term "arts" represents a vast amount of experiences from the visual and aural world. "Arts" could mean stand-up comedy, dramatic readings, poetry, literature, opera, drama, jazz, blues, rap, hip-hop, rock, folk, orchestras, busking, dancing, film, media, singing, television, graffiti, design, architecture, decorating, quilting, crafts, even culinary presentation. When one considers support for creative endeavors, the only real limit is the human spirit for something new. Add in historical studies, ethnic emphases, demographic alternatives, social considerations, and audience responses, we find a tremendous amount of artistic possibilities for support.
Is it art if nobody is there to experience it? (I know, it sounds like the old tree falling question). If the NEA supports that which requires funds for its existence, it probably funds artistic experiences that are limited in audience response. This makes logical sense. No need for the NEA to provide funds for the musical Hamilton or for a Lady Gaga concert. The NEA looks for those worthwhile art experiences that will likely not garner a large audience but are "worthwhile" in spite of the lack of public financial support.
The conclusion, therefore, is that our tax dollars go to events that are generally not popular. If they were popular, then no support would be required. If I make a cake that is lousy and nobody purchases it, then I am saddened by my poor effort and will try to improve next time or perhaps give up on my cake making ability. While it feels cheap to relegate art to a commodity, is it really that different? Should our art find a public audience, and if not, should it not go the way of all bad art?
Market forces determine so much of our world including our clothes, media, cars, jobs, interests, tastes, and the list continues. Why is art different?
The only valid argument, which is distasteful, is that "we" who are artists, "we" who determine the value of the arts, "we" who make the decisions for what to fund, are the knowledgeable elite who know what is best for society and culture. This is the same weak argument that once prevented the Holy Bible from being in the hands of the people. The same poor argument that causes totalitarianism, demagoguery, power abuse, self-proclaimed experts, and ultimately enslavement.
The NEA, for all its good intentions, may need to start listening to the people. This is not a diatribe against the NEA but it is a large demand for the arts to remain alive and in the hands of a public that just may know best over time. It seems almost dangerous to rely on the so called artistic elites to decide what is best for our culture.
Friday, March 17, 2017
Cutting the National Endowment for the Arts
Once again the NEA is under seige and this time it looks as though a serious battle is about to begin. The result is unknown at this point but I won't be surprised to see a compromise of sorts to include a substantial cut to the funding. This does happen every few years for different reasons, most of which are valid, and it causes a myriad of emotional reactions with most people ultimately exclaiming the value of the arts in culture today. Politicians give in to the public pressure and the NEA survives at a lower level. Then each year funding increases, new emphases occurs in the arts, and the growth continues until a new administration questions it once again. Ah, the cycle of life in the arts.
Is there a solution to the problem? It can be boiled down to the role of the marketplace and the true value of the role of the arts in our society. Are the arts truly dependent on government intervention for survival? Without the funding, would the arts as we know it die a slow death, going the way of the horse and buggy, the typewriter, the basset horn?
I have been writing on the state of classical music and the symphony orchestra for several years and now it looks as though the problems are extended to the arts in general including theatre, art, ballet, and music. All of these and more are struggling, living on life support, and suffering through poverty, deprivation, and a lack of resources. The basic needs for existence are being removed and soon the arts will disappear forever.
But wait a minute! What about Hamilton, the amazingly successful show that marries history with current events? How about Lady Gaga, Taylor Swift, Justin Bieber, Josh Groban? How about the sell out crowds at the Metropolitan Opera? New music by Jennifer Higdon? What about the countless public school concerts of children's music, orchestras, choirs, bands? Small schools and large schools with a marching band performance every Friday night throughout September and October? What about the art shows all over town? The plays in schools and in community theatres? Are the arts really in decline? Does not look that way to me.
Are the arts doing well because of the NEA, because of government support? Or do the arts survive successfully because of the human need for culture, refinement, beauty, emotion, sound, sights, experiences? Take away all government funding and the arts will bounce back in full force because the arts are essential to the human experience. We do NOT need the NEA for support and we do not require tax dollars for the arts to live and breathe actively in our lives. Limiting the funding may be painful but it will not kill the arts because the arts cannot be killed.
Let the market guide the arts in the future and do not depend on external funding for success. Reduction of government funding and development of privatization can only serve society better than the current system.
Is there a solution to the problem? It can be boiled down to the role of the marketplace and the true value of the role of the arts in our society. Are the arts truly dependent on government intervention for survival? Without the funding, would the arts as we know it die a slow death, going the way of the horse and buggy, the typewriter, the basset horn?
I have been writing on the state of classical music and the symphony orchestra for several years and now it looks as though the problems are extended to the arts in general including theatre, art, ballet, and music. All of these and more are struggling, living on life support, and suffering through poverty, deprivation, and a lack of resources. The basic needs for existence are being removed and soon the arts will disappear forever.
But wait a minute! What about Hamilton, the amazingly successful show that marries history with current events? How about Lady Gaga, Taylor Swift, Justin Bieber, Josh Groban? How about the sell out crowds at the Metropolitan Opera? New music by Jennifer Higdon? What about the countless public school concerts of children's music, orchestras, choirs, bands? Small schools and large schools with a marching band performance every Friday night throughout September and October? What about the art shows all over town? The plays in schools and in community theatres? Are the arts really in decline? Does not look that way to me.
Are the arts doing well because of the NEA, because of government support? Or do the arts survive successfully because of the human need for culture, refinement, beauty, emotion, sound, sights, experiences? Take away all government funding and the arts will bounce back in full force because the arts are essential to the human experience. We do NOT need the NEA for support and we do not require tax dollars for the arts to live and breathe actively in our lives. Limiting the funding may be painful but it will not kill the arts because the arts cannot be killed.
Let the market guide the arts in the future and do not depend on external funding for success. Reduction of government funding and development of privatization can only serve society better than the current system.
Wednesday, March 15, 2017
Doctoral work, the beginnings
Yes, I do already have a doctorate so why would I start yet another one? My Doctor of Philosophy in Fine Arts serves my profession well and having a research based degree with emphasis in music education and administration gives me the kind of credibility I need to be effective. But my objective side also enjoys the business world and I recognize the value of the market in shaping our culture. Fascinated with business ventures, the stock market, and the economy, I enjoy observing the growth and the decline of local and global businesses. It is all about finding and keeping customers, and selling the product. Customers may be local people walking around looking for a snack or customers may be giant conglomerates needing support from other businesses. The product could be an object, a good, a commodity, a service, or a need.
Rather than enter the business world myself, especially considering a lack of financial resources to begin the business I seek, I have decided to continue my education with the pursuit of a Doctorate in Business Administration with an emphasis on Management. Suddenly I find myself in an on-line class with 22 other people. The course is writing and research intensive and there is no room for citation error. Once again needing to learn APA format, I am frequently checking the manual on specific citation requirements.
The world has changed since my last dissertation which contained no web resources. Suddenly the world wide web is the springboard for research which may include books but mostly includes journal articles, surveys, data, and analysis. My previous research work did not include digital object identifiers for web resources such as journal articles and references. I am thrust into a world that has changed, for the better I might add, and I need to learn what to do. Admittedly I am strangely embarrassed that I have not kept up with the research world the last 15 years. It is neither fair nor right to teach college students in a style or even information that is not current. Yes, truth does not change but the way to discover that truth is completely new.
When did I become archaic, I ask myself? Was it the day I completed my PhD and began to be contented with my own accomplishments? A frightening thought indeed. How often does this happen to college teachers where they set their sights on a goal, reach the goal, and then stop learning? Yikes, the idea is completely deplorable to me, and I will not let that happen again. Regardless of where this pursuit takes me intellectually or otherwise, I am pleased to learn something new and to seek after a new goal. Have I become a life-long student? I think so and proud of it!
Rather than enter the business world myself, especially considering a lack of financial resources to begin the business I seek, I have decided to continue my education with the pursuit of a Doctorate in Business Administration with an emphasis on Management. Suddenly I find myself in an on-line class with 22 other people. The course is writing and research intensive and there is no room for citation error. Once again needing to learn APA format, I am frequently checking the manual on specific citation requirements.
The world has changed since my last dissertation which contained no web resources. Suddenly the world wide web is the springboard for research which may include books but mostly includes journal articles, surveys, data, and analysis. My previous research work did not include digital object identifiers for web resources such as journal articles and references. I am thrust into a world that has changed, for the better I might add, and I need to learn what to do. Admittedly I am strangely embarrassed that I have not kept up with the research world the last 15 years. It is neither fair nor right to teach college students in a style or even information that is not current. Yes, truth does not change but the way to discover that truth is completely new.
When did I become archaic, I ask myself? Was it the day I completed my PhD and began to be contented with my own accomplishments? A frightening thought indeed. How often does this happen to college teachers where they set their sights on a goal, reach the goal, and then stop learning? Yikes, the idea is completely deplorable to me, and I will not let that happen again. Regardless of where this pursuit takes me intellectually or otherwise, I am pleased to learn something new and to seek after a new goal. Have I become a life-long student? I think so and proud of it!
Monday, February 06, 2017
Mahler and the Audience
I recently heard Symphony No. 5 by Gustav Mahler and was entranced as I knew I would be. My love for the music of Mahler goes back to my youth having heard Mahler's Symphony No. 1 as a teenager. I quickly became enamored with his music and my love has remained to this day. Long flowing melodic lines, sophisticated orchestration, rich harmonies, powerful emotions, counterpoint, dynamics, moments of extreme beauty and tenderness followed by muscular power and aggression, his symphonies come close to representing the total human experience through sound. Using simple folk melodies, Mahler would surround the simplicity with great complexity, exploring and exploiting the extremes of every instrument, leaving players and audiences dealing with emotional exhaustion blended with renewed energy.
Having played several of Mahler's symphonies as a horn player, I can attest to the tremendous respect the players have toward his music. Admittedly, however, playing his music is daunting, often provoking fear and trepidation in players, horn players in particular. The symphonies are long, difficult, demanding, and completely exhausting both physically and emotionally. Not unlike a doctoral defense of a thesis or a final chess game in a tournament or a speech delivered to thousands, playing a Mahler symphony is an unforgettable experience. I recall performing Mahler's 3rd Symphony with its gigantic orchestra, choir, children's choir and ultra sophistication of orchestration. After the performance, I could hardly move much less think, I was totally worn out and fearful of making a full recovery! At the same time, my excitement level was high and I had a strange superman complex that I could conquer anything and solve all problems. Such is the power of Gustav Mahler and his symphonies.
But performing a Mahler symphony is costly. 75 performing musicians needing to be paid, utility costs, cartage expenses, personnel expenses, office staff, marketing, ticket sales, conductor, sound managers, and a business officer. Costs for one Mahler symphony can run $75,000 or more depending on how much marketing will be done prior to the event.
Orchestras generally depend on 1/3 to 1/2 of its revenue to come from ticket sales. The other forms of revenue include grants, gifts, and sponsorships. An orchestra, however, cannot suddenly raise the price for a concert depending on the literature being performed. Maybe featuring a certain guest artist or some kind of special event could justify high ticket prices but in general the set price is the price for each concert regardless of the selections being performed. This makes it a market endeavor (like all businesses) and concerts that are popular with people will more than likely help offset the expenses. In today's market economy it becomes necessary to find music that will sell tickets. Unfortunately this requirement often battles against the need for artistic expression and for music considered high quality. Which brings us back to Mahler.
Will the strength of the Mahler Symphony, a highly regarded work that is acknowledged for its quality, emotional content, excellent compositional technique and superior orchestration, be enough to attract an audience that will provide enough revenue to pay for the expenses? Should marketing for such an event be focused on hearing the Mahler Symphony? Will the name "Mahler" be enough for people pay to hear the symphony live? Will they become curious, read about his life, listen to his works?
In every community there exists those who love art music, whose musical tastes run deep and encompass music history including but not limited to the great composer and works that have stood the test of time. These people enjoy commercial music to an extent but have a strong preference for the past and for the canon of music literature. Although a smaller number, these people, many of them academically minded, well-read, educated, and with financial resources to support art music, continue to shape our universities and local arts endeavors. They hold desperately to an ideal of the rich meaning of the classics and how a culture devoid of artistry is destined down the path of primitivism and a severe lack of refinement. It is these who will come out and enjoy the Mahler symphony.
But is it really worth the effort and the cost? Probably not. Yes, it gave me good feelings and I felt emotionally changed by the experience of listening to the great work. I had the melodies moving through my head the rest of the night and I mentioned to many people what a great performance it was. The audience instantly was on its feet and I saw smiles and joy on the faces of those present. Everything about the concert was excellent and we are all better people from having heard the performance.
Yet the expenses far outweighed the revenue. Maybe ticket sales brought in $20,000 but my rough estimate was closer to $15,000. Maybe expenses were as low as $65,000 but I suspect the cost was closer to $75,000. Conservatively the orchestra lost $40,000 although I would guess the loss to be closer to $60,000, and all for one concert and one listening experience. A grand one for sure and truly remarkable but costly.
We do not want the market to shape the culture and we do not want money to govern our artistic tastes. It is regrettable to have to convert great art into a commodity and it certainly makes us a society of greedy capitalists without regard for finery and sophistication. But in the final analysis, it is the market which is comprised of people, that determines great art and determines the future of the canon. Right now my guess is that unless orchestras find a way to increase revenue and decrease expenses, we will no longer enjoy opportunities to hear Mahler symphonies. Time and the market place will tell the final story. Love Mahler now knowing that live performances could be a lost art.
Having played several of Mahler's symphonies as a horn player, I can attest to the tremendous respect the players have toward his music. Admittedly, however, playing his music is daunting, often provoking fear and trepidation in players, horn players in particular. The symphonies are long, difficult, demanding, and completely exhausting both physically and emotionally. Not unlike a doctoral defense of a thesis or a final chess game in a tournament or a speech delivered to thousands, playing a Mahler symphony is an unforgettable experience. I recall performing Mahler's 3rd Symphony with its gigantic orchestra, choir, children's choir and ultra sophistication of orchestration. After the performance, I could hardly move much less think, I was totally worn out and fearful of making a full recovery! At the same time, my excitement level was high and I had a strange superman complex that I could conquer anything and solve all problems. Such is the power of Gustav Mahler and his symphonies.
But performing a Mahler symphony is costly. 75 performing musicians needing to be paid, utility costs, cartage expenses, personnel expenses, office staff, marketing, ticket sales, conductor, sound managers, and a business officer. Costs for one Mahler symphony can run $75,000 or more depending on how much marketing will be done prior to the event.
Orchestras generally depend on 1/3 to 1/2 of its revenue to come from ticket sales. The other forms of revenue include grants, gifts, and sponsorships. An orchestra, however, cannot suddenly raise the price for a concert depending on the literature being performed. Maybe featuring a certain guest artist or some kind of special event could justify high ticket prices but in general the set price is the price for each concert regardless of the selections being performed. This makes it a market endeavor (like all businesses) and concerts that are popular with people will more than likely help offset the expenses. In today's market economy it becomes necessary to find music that will sell tickets. Unfortunately this requirement often battles against the need for artistic expression and for music considered high quality. Which brings us back to Mahler.
Will the strength of the Mahler Symphony, a highly regarded work that is acknowledged for its quality, emotional content, excellent compositional technique and superior orchestration, be enough to attract an audience that will provide enough revenue to pay for the expenses? Should marketing for such an event be focused on hearing the Mahler Symphony? Will the name "Mahler" be enough for people pay to hear the symphony live? Will they become curious, read about his life, listen to his works?
In every community there exists those who love art music, whose musical tastes run deep and encompass music history including but not limited to the great composer and works that have stood the test of time. These people enjoy commercial music to an extent but have a strong preference for the past and for the canon of music literature. Although a smaller number, these people, many of them academically minded, well-read, educated, and with financial resources to support art music, continue to shape our universities and local arts endeavors. They hold desperately to an ideal of the rich meaning of the classics and how a culture devoid of artistry is destined down the path of primitivism and a severe lack of refinement. It is these who will come out and enjoy the Mahler symphony.
But is it really worth the effort and the cost? Probably not. Yes, it gave me good feelings and I felt emotionally changed by the experience of listening to the great work. I had the melodies moving through my head the rest of the night and I mentioned to many people what a great performance it was. The audience instantly was on its feet and I saw smiles and joy on the faces of those present. Everything about the concert was excellent and we are all better people from having heard the performance.
Yet the expenses far outweighed the revenue. Maybe ticket sales brought in $20,000 but my rough estimate was closer to $15,000. Maybe expenses were as low as $65,000 but I suspect the cost was closer to $75,000. Conservatively the orchestra lost $40,000 although I would guess the loss to be closer to $60,000, and all for one concert and one listening experience. A grand one for sure and truly remarkable but costly.
We do not want the market to shape the culture and we do not want money to govern our artistic tastes. It is regrettable to have to convert great art into a commodity and it certainly makes us a society of greedy capitalists without regard for finery and sophistication. But in the final analysis, it is the market which is comprised of people, that determines great art and determines the future of the canon. Right now my guess is that unless orchestras find a way to increase revenue and decrease expenses, we will no longer enjoy opportunities to hear Mahler symphonies. Time and the market place will tell the final story. Love Mahler now knowing that live performances could be a lost art.
Sunday, January 22, 2017
False Joy and Destruction, is truth always preferred?
It was so fun every time Dad brought out the records to play. We heard Jay and the Americans, Harry Belafonte, Tijuana Brass, Beethoven's 6th symphony, Gospel quartets, Tommy Dorsey, soundtracks from Guys and Dolls, Oliver, Camelot, Music Man, and many others. As I got a little older and perhaps a little more sophisticated (whatever that means!), we heard Scheherazade, Brahms First Symphony, Mozart Horn Concertos, Maynard Ferguson, Woody Herman, Mannheim Steamroller, Bill Watrous, and Barry Tuckwell recordings. But inevitably, during family listening times, Dad would pull out two fun recordings: Gossamer Wump and Florence Foster Jenkins. I still find Gossamer Wump insanely funny and ironically musically advanced. In a way, however, the greatest laughs were reserved for Florence Foster Jenkins, the laughingstock of the musical world.
It was an old record, showing her in a silly angel looking costume. On the back was the story of her life and the famed recording that took place in Carnegie Hall. As a child in a musical family, I recognized at an early age that the voice was off-key and lacked in quality on many levels. The poor diction, awful tone quality, guttural attacks, inaccurate note placement, and shockingly bad interpretation of the musical lines made its way into my memory, resulting in continual humor. In a strange way, the familiarity with the bad, enhanced the good, helping shape me into a musician with high standards of performance. Although an instrumentalist more than a vocalist, I have worked diligently to avoid being laughed at or accused of having low standards of excellence. Always in the back of my mind, I did not want to be, nor do I still want to become Florence Foster Jenkins. The name alone typified humor, poor performance, musical disaster, and finding false joy at the awful noise. It was fun to imagine the musical joke known as Florence Foster Jenkins.
But all that changed this past Friday night when I saw the movie. Outstanding film with excellent acting, line delivery, music, accuracy, and historically portrayed. Bittersweet presentation with a nice balance of humor, confusion, human foibles, and character growth. In the midst, we find characters we like and those we don't. The problem is that suddenly the brunt of my humor and a strong, albeit negative, influence on my career, became a real person with real emotions, challenges, confusions, insecurities, false confidence, energy, fear, and all the qualities that make us human.
A child prodigy on the piano, Florence married at a young age only to have her husband give her syphilis. Defying medical odds, she lived with the disease all the way to her death at the age of 76. When her husband died, he left her in good financial condition which she used to live comfortably while being a generous patron of the arts and the musical society. Loving music but unable to continue to play the piano due to an accident, she turned to singing. Voice lessons and contacts with famous people led her to have an inflated view of her own talent. Unable to tell her the truth, her friends and acquaintances fed her own fragile but desperate desire to be known as a great singer.
Her charm, her positive demeanor, her love of the arts, and her ability to spread good cheer likely caused much of the falsehood and deferment that was offered to her. Although conjecture, it is also possible that the syphilis affected the nerve center in her brain that caused a lack of discernment and self-awareness. Whatever the outside and inside influences, Florence Foster Jenkins was a very poor singer who thought she was outstanding. Funny, yes indeed, but not really. Her sold out concert in Carnegie Hall was filled with those who laughed inwardly and cheered outwardly. The one critic who told the truth destroyed her and she died within a month of the concert. Would hiding the truth have been preferred? Perhaps.
Do I regret the laughs? Mostly yes. Was I laughing at her expense...yes in a way. Was my joy at her terrible singing, sincerely joy? Maybe so. But now, these many years later, I no longer can laugh with any kind of sincerity. After all, she may have been quirky, but she supported the arts. Mostly she was a special person in many ways and it is time to put aside the laughs and embrace the great qualities.
It was an old record, showing her in a silly angel looking costume. On the back was the story of her life and the famed recording that took place in Carnegie Hall. As a child in a musical family, I recognized at an early age that the voice was off-key and lacked in quality on many levels. The poor diction, awful tone quality, guttural attacks, inaccurate note placement, and shockingly bad interpretation of the musical lines made its way into my memory, resulting in continual humor. In a strange way, the familiarity with the bad, enhanced the good, helping shape me into a musician with high standards of performance. Although an instrumentalist more than a vocalist, I have worked diligently to avoid being laughed at or accused of having low standards of excellence. Always in the back of my mind, I did not want to be, nor do I still want to become Florence Foster Jenkins. The name alone typified humor, poor performance, musical disaster, and finding false joy at the awful noise. It was fun to imagine the musical joke known as Florence Foster Jenkins.
But all that changed this past Friday night when I saw the movie. Outstanding film with excellent acting, line delivery, music, accuracy, and historically portrayed. Bittersweet presentation with a nice balance of humor, confusion, human foibles, and character growth. In the midst, we find characters we like and those we don't. The problem is that suddenly the brunt of my humor and a strong, albeit negative, influence on my career, became a real person with real emotions, challenges, confusions, insecurities, false confidence, energy, fear, and all the qualities that make us human.
A child prodigy on the piano, Florence married at a young age only to have her husband give her syphilis. Defying medical odds, she lived with the disease all the way to her death at the age of 76. When her husband died, he left her in good financial condition which she used to live comfortably while being a generous patron of the arts and the musical society. Loving music but unable to continue to play the piano due to an accident, she turned to singing. Voice lessons and contacts with famous people led her to have an inflated view of her own talent. Unable to tell her the truth, her friends and acquaintances fed her own fragile but desperate desire to be known as a great singer.
Her charm, her positive demeanor, her love of the arts, and her ability to spread good cheer likely caused much of the falsehood and deferment that was offered to her. Although conjecture, it is also possible that the syphilis affected the nerve center in her brain that caused a lack of discernment and self-awareness. Whatever the outside and inside influences, Florence Foster Jenkins was a very poor singer who thought she was outstanding. Funny, yes indeed, but not really. Her sold out concert in Carnegie Hall was filled with those who laughed inwardly and cheered outwardly. The one critic who told the truth destroyed her and she died within a month of the concert. Would hiding the truth have been preferred? Perhaps.
Do I regret the laughs? Mostly yes. Was I laughing at her expense...yes in a way. Was my joy at her terrible singing, sincerely joy? Maybe so. But now, these many years later, I no longer can laugh with any kind of sincerity. After all, she may have been quirky, but she supported the arts. Mostly she was a special person in many ways and it is time to put aside the laughs and embrace the great qualities.
Tuesday, January 17, 2017
First day of semester
Today begins the first day of the semester and I have that same feeling of incompleteness and concern that I always do on the first day. Academia has become excessively complicated the last few years and managers experience severe stress in making sure everything is ready for the first day. Are the classrooms ready including enough desks, proper lighting, heating or cooling, technology working? Are the teachers ready for each class? Have I assigned every class correctly or did something slip through unnoticed in the scheduling? Will there be a class with students and no teacher? Or will there be a teacher but no students?
Have the part-time teachers completed all the paperwork in order to teach? Have I turned in their compensation correctly? Do we have accompanists assigned for all voice lessons? Instrumental lessons? Will the full-time teachers have a full teaching load? Too much? Not enough? Are concerts and events correctly scheduled for the semester? Have we accidentally built in any conflicts or problems? Are the pianos tuned? Anything not working in any classrooms or offices?
Are the students registered for the correct classes? Are they receiving the expected financial aid? Are there any class conflicts? Do I have systems in place for solving problems? How much budget money is left? Do I have enough to take care of office needs? Faculty issues? Upcoming travel needs? Student worker funds? Are all bills paid from last semester? Anything outstanding?
Then there are the other ongoing problems. What do we do about the torn up seats in the library? How do move forward with technology? When can I get a student leader group together? Are there enough textbooks in the bookstore? Will all the students arrive? Will the new students know where to go for class?
Have I prepared the curriculum change forms correctly? Are we handling the graduate classes in the best way? Are we ready for upcoming concerts and events?
One way or another, the first day is here and we'll see how it goes!
Have the part-time teachers completed all the paperwork in order to teach? Have I turned in their compensation correctly? Do we have accompanists assigned for all voice lessons? Instrumental lessons? Will the full-time teachers have a full teaching load? Too much? Not enough? Are concerts and events correctly scheduled for the semester? Have we accidentally built in any conflicts or problems? Are the pianos tuned? Anything not working in any classrooms or offices?
Are the students registered for the correct classes? Are they receiving the expected financial aid? Are there any class conflicts? Do I have systems in place for solving problems? How much budget money is left? Do I have enough to take care of office needs? Faculty issues? Upcoming travel needs? Student worker funds? Are all bills paid from last semester? Anything outstanding?
Then there are the other ongoing problems. What do we do about the torn up seats in the library? How do move forward with technology? When can I get a student leader group together? Are there enough textbooks in the bookstore? Will all the students arrive? Will the new students know where to go for class?
Have I prepared the curriculum change forms correctly? Are we handling the graduate classes in the best way? Are we ready for upcoming concerts and events?
One way or another, the first day is here and we'll see how it goes!
Sunday, January 08, 2017
A tribute to Mary Travers
Once a month I listen to a few songs by Peter, Paul, and Mary, a popular folk group whose fame seems to rest on their recording of Puff, the Magic Dragon. Yet the more I listen to this wonderful group of singers, the more I become enamored with the singing of Mary Travers. Her rich, low voice in a contra alto range with just a touch of a gravely sound enhanced the smooth qualities of the other two singers. Her career in Peter, Paul, and Mary plus her time as a soloist was filled with an authentic approach to songs, bringing out the text in a personal way on every song.
The quality that stands out in her singing is not necessarily her lead singing but rather in her harmony. When singing harmony to the melody, she shines with a glow that emanates throughout the song and throughout her career. Unlike most supportive harmony parts, Mary's harmony singing takes on melody of its very own. Not dissimilar to the age-old concept of polyphony, her harmony is both congruent and independent, with a sensitive yet strong quality to it. Freely moving around but somehow staying within the scope of the song, Mary's harmonic support perfectly fits the melody being sung. When she takes her turn at the melody, she is of course quite accurate and appealing, honest, full, and heartfelt. Then she moves back to the role of support while either Paul or usually Peter takes the melody. The result is a vibrant musical expression that is contrapuntally complex yet oddly simple in its construction.
Somehow she infused her gentle personality in each song while retaining her musical strength. Matching vowel sounds and consonants with her ensembles, she also keeps her distinctive and original inflections of the text, finding that phrase point that brings out the meaning of the line. Marrying text with music, she explores dynamic direction of every phrase and we never hear anything stagnate. Instead each phrase, each song takes on an energy and power that finds the depth of the musical moment.
Take a few minutes to listen to Peter, Paul, and Mary sing Blowin in the Wind, Puff, the Magic Dragon, The Lemon Tree, The Cruel War, or Leaving on a Jet Plane. All of it is special, honest, tender, musical, and powerful. One of my favorite recordings is that of "I Have a Song to Sing-Oh" by Gilbert and Sullivan. It is from the opera "Yeoman of the Guard." Their odd folk-like interpretation is both funny and profound as the song weaves around adding notes and lines all the way to end. Listen not to the melody but to the harmony as sung by the marvelous Mary Travers.
The quality that stands out in her singing is not necessarily her lead singing but rather in her harmony. When singing harmony to the melody, she shines with a glow that emanates throughout the song and throughout her career. Unlike most supportive harmony parts, Mary's harmony singing takes on melody of its very own. Not dissimilar to the age-old concept of polyphony, her harmony is both congruent and independent, with a sensitive yet strong quality to it. Freely moving around but somehow staying within the scope of the song, Mary's harmonic support perfectly fits the melody being sung. When she takes her turn at the melody, she is of course quite accurate and appealing, honest, full, and heartfelt. Then she moves back to the role of support while either Paul or usually Peter takes the melody. The result is a vibrant musical expression that is contrapuntally complex yet oddly simple in its construction.
Somehow she infused her gentle personality in each song while retaining her musical strength. Matching vowel sounds and consonants with her ensembles, she also keeps her distinctive and original inflections of the text, finding that phrase point that brings out the meaning of the line. Marrying text with music, she explores dynamic direction of every phrase and we never hear anything stagnate. Instead each phrase, each song takes on an energy and power that finds the depth of the musical moment.
Take a few minutes to listen to Peter, Paul, and Mary sing Blowin in the Wind, Puff, the Magic Dragon, The Lemon Tree, The Cruel War, or Leaving on a Jet Plane. All of it is special, honest, tender, musical, and powerful. One of my favorite recordings is that of "I Have a Song to Sing-Oh" by Gilbert and Sullivan. It is from the opera "Yeoman of the Guard." Their odd folk-like interpretation is both funny and profound as the song weaves around adding notes and lines all the way to end. Listen not to the melody but to the harmony as sung by the marvelous Mary Travers.
Friday, January 06, 2017
The World at Your Fingertips
It is a joyous world in which we live. With a few clicks, we can read about virtually any subject, learn how to do just about any task, study the history behind an idea, learn the definition of a word, listen to almost any piece of music, discover what is happening across continents, learn mathematical formulas, read about or chat with a friend hundreds of miles away, study science, languages, arts, business, or health. Another click and we read about politics, fashion, trends, stock prices, food, commodities, ancestry, job openings, salaries, hacking, religion, running, disease, literature, geology, dinosaurs, hiking trails, hotels, campsites, vacations, and motivations.
There are very few subjects that are not found on the Internet somewhere. A click or two and you can learn things never before imagined. While at one time we depended on the expert to tell us how something works, we can now become that expert. The net is the ultimate professor, the classroom, the ideal (although flawed) educator, the avenue for intellectual growth, the global exposure, the social inhibitor and social influencer. When a person is online, he or she has the world at his fingertips. The expert is you.
What does this mean for the future of education? Bleak in many ways, glorious in other ways. The concept of liberal arts as stemming from the Greek philosophers of old, is that of creating the "whole" person, the well-rounded critical thinker, the fundamentally sound learner, the potential contributor to society, a communicator, a person of high ethics and integrity, a strong work ethic, and a person with ability and desire to learn new things and apply energy to the task at hand. Liberal arts should help create imagination, originality, a sense of independence and congruence. Through the liberal arts, we should know how to pare something to its essentials while keeping in mind the whole picture. Liberal arts as an ideal seeks to motivate and inspire people to make a difference in the world. It provides foundational knowledge as a step toward excellence in whatever chosen profession a person seeks.
But the net provides the liberal arts. It is here and now. Get online and find the world. Each day learn something new and discover yourself in the process. The foundational curriculum is at your fingertips. The opportunity to learn something new now sits on your lap waiting for your embrace. Tired of your career? Learn a new one. Curious about a foreign land? Search for it and explore. Not sure about a mathematical formula? Find it and it will be explained. Can't remember who wrote a song or a piece of music? The information is there. Spelling and grammar? No problem. Art, literature, periodic table, animal behavior, social concerns, politics, history? Not even sure what you don't know? Discover your strengths, your weaknesses, your areas of interest, your values. Make new friends, reacquaint yourself with the old ones.
Use the Net to your advantage and learn yourself in the process. Yes, guidance is likely needed and many times we are unaware of what we do not know in the first place. Plus we do not always know what to do with information nor how to apply it to our lives, our careers, and to our own improvement. While respect for those who have achieved in a particular area is absolute, so too should the experts respect the ease of information. We are in a new world where developing the whole person is easy, fast, and highly worthwhile. Students no longer need to have information imparted to them in a classroom. Instead, they need the recognition of what knowledge can do for them, where to find it, how to apply it, and, mostly, how to think critically about the information that is available. Through this process, they learn values, interests, their own gifts, their own motivations, and, ultimately, their own calling.
But is all learning truly on the Net? The answer is of course no, for learning can take place through books, magazines, journals, discussions, social engagements, activity, events, observations, relationships, and human interaction. It is possible that colleges and universities need to reinvent the concept of liberal arts and recognize that developing the "whole" person is a process, not a set of rules, and that the process includes knowledge blended with experiences. Yes the world is now at our fingertips and it is a big world. We need to take the tools we have been given and use them to make the world a better place.
There are very few subjects that are not found on the Internet somewhere. A click or two and you can learn things never before imagined. While at one time we depended on the expert to tell us how something works, we can now become that expert. The net is the ultimate professor, the classroom, the ideal (although flawed) educator, the avenue for intellectual growth, the global exposure, the social inhibitor and social influencer. When a person is online, he or she has the world at his fingertips. The expert is you.
What does this mean for the future of education? Bleak in many ways, glorious in other ways. The concept of liberal arts as stemming from the Greek philosophers of old, is that of creating the "whole" person, the well-rounded critical thinker, the fundamentally sound learner, the potential contributor to society, a communicator, a person of high ethics and integrity, a strong work ethic, and a person with ability and desire to learn new things and apply energy to the task at hand. Liberal arts should help create imagination, originality, a sense of independence and congruence. Through the liberal arts, we should know how to pare something to its essentials while keeping in mind the whole picture. Liberal arts as an ideal seeks to motivate and inspire people to make a difference in the world. It provides foundational knowledge as a step toward excellence in whatever chosen profession a person seeks.
But the net provides the liberal arts. It is here and now. Get online and find the world. Each day learn something new and discover yourself in the process. The foundational curriculum is at your fingertips. The opportunity to learn something new now sits on your lap waiting for your embrace. Tired of your career? Learn a new one. Curious about a foreign land? Search for it and explore. Not sure about a mathematical formula? Find it and it will be explained. Can't remember who wrote a song or a piece of music? The information is there. Spelling and grammar? No problem. Art, literature, periodic table, animal behavior, social concerns, politics, history? Not even sure what you don't know? Discover your strengths, your weaknesses, your areas of interest, your values. Make new friends, reacquaint yourself with the old ones.
Use the Net to your advantage and learn yourself in the process. Yes, guidance is likely needed and many times we are unaware of what we do not know in the first place. Plus we do not always know what to do with information nor how to apply it to our lives, our careers, and to our own improvement. While respect for those who have achieved in a particular area is absolute, so too should the experts respect the ease of information. We are in a new world where developing the whole person is easy, fast, and highly worthwhile. Students no longer need to have information imparted to them in a classroom. Instead, they need the recognition of what knowledge can do for them, where to find it, how to apply it, and, mostly, how to think critically about the information that is available. Through this process, they learn values, interests, their own gifts, their own motivations, and, ultimately, their own calling.
But is all learning truly on the Net? The answer is of course no, for learning can take place through books, magazines, journals, discussions, social engagements, activity, events, observations, relationships, and human interaction. It is possible that colleges and universities need to reinvent the concept of liberal arts and recognize that developing the "whole" person is a process, not a set of rules, and that the process includes knowledge blended with experiences. Yes the world is now at our fingertips and it is a big world. We need to take the tools we have been given and use them to make the world a better place.
Sunday, January 01, 2017
Productivity for 2017
New Years resolutions abound on this day and with it lots of excitement about the future. Time to lose weight, exercise more, repair relationships, manage money better, take a risk, get new tires, paint the house, and the list of goals continues. But for me, I am resolving to be more productive and to drive myself a little harder. This February I start school again with the pursuit of a Doctor of Business Administration. It will take four years to complete and I have no real reason to pursue it other than a desire for greater knowledge in that area.
Connected to productivity, I would really like to compose a short opera, publish an article, and perform a recital, and do more for people. I would also like to form an LLC with someone and pursue a business venture of some kind. Lots of goals for 2017. Of course the usual...lose weight, exercise more, repair relationships, be positive, and spread good cheer. All these and more for 2017. Not being an overly reflective sort, I will say that 2016 was a difficult year. I lost several friends and had some work challenges that gave me pause and sapped my energy.
But never one to look back with regret nor with nostalgia, I will keep pushing forward to greater heights and opportunities. Yes, 2016 was an emotional bear market in many ways but I predict a bull market for me and my family in 2017. Not to be overly stock market oriented, if we look at emotions, challenges, relationships, and changes as a chart, we will see many declines and increases. In the end though, life is not a chart but is about people and about faith. As a person recently told me, we talk about faith but we don't always apply it. Time to apply faith with a strong work ethic.
I look forward to 2017, to learning more, to growing, and mostly to be the person God wants me to be.
How about you? Goals?
Connected to productivity, I would really like to compose a short opera, publish an article, and perform a recital, and do more for people. I would also like to form an LLC with someone and pursue a business venture of some kind. Lots of goals for 2017. Of course the usual...lose weight, exercise more, repair relationships, be positive, and spread good cheer. All these and more for 2017. Not being an overly reflective sort, I will say that 2016 was a difficult year. I lost several friends and had some work challenges that gave me pause and sapped my energy.
But never one to look back with regret nor with nostalgia, I will keep pushing forward to greater heights and opportunities. Yes, 2016 was an emotional bear market in many ways but I predict a bull market for me and my family in 2017. Not to be overly stock market oriented, if we look at emotions, challenges, relationships, and changes as a chart, we will see many declines and increases. In the end though, life is not a chart but is about people and about faith. As a person recently told me, we talk about faith but we don't always apply it. Time to apply faith with a strong work ethic.
I look forward to 2017, to learning more, to growing, and mostly to be the person God wants me to be.
How about you? Goals?
Saturday, December 31, 2016
Visual or not, Christmas Lights
Admittedly, most people in the world claim to be, and I have no reason not to believe them, visual learners. Not entirely sure what this means but students have often told me they respond better to pictures or visual descriptions than just hearing. Obviously this augers against what it means to be a musician in that music is an auditory endeavor. Yet it is true that many musicians are "locked" into the printed music and how to translate that into sound. Despite the push toward more improvisatory experiences, this is difficult for many musicians who prefer to interpret that which is precisely presented on the printed page.
All this to say, I have never felt entirely obligated to stick to the printed page of music and, instead, have often felt the personal freedom to expand sound when needed or at least inspired. Does this make me an auditory learner more than a visual one? I believe so. I continue to be fascinated with sound in all its complexity and I am well attuned to different sounds I hear around me whether indoors or outdoors. Sounds of birds, wind, cars, laughing, scraping, steps, all intrigue me and I find myself quickly processing sounds and categorizing them. It is my way of learning my world.
I guess this provides the best explanation for my lack of interest in Christmas Lights. Going back to childhood, I recall the inevitable night of driving around El Paso looking at Christmas Lights. Ooing and Aahing while marveling at the effort and the beauty. Many houses went all out for this including luminaries, various colors, yard lights, trees, rooftops, and every type of lights available. I recall my Dad working hard to put lights on our house and many years later I became my Dad! And now driving around Abilene, Brownwood, and San Angelo I still see lights everywhere. We recently took a trip to San Angelo to see their city display of the 12 days of Christmas along the Concho river. Beautiful lights and shapes and fun ways of presenting the Christmas story adorned the banks of the river and we drove slowly in admiration while smiling and expressing pleasantries.
Knowing this is important to my wife, family, and friends, it seems to happen every year. Drive around the city and look at lights. Being a "team" player, I have taught myself to drive slowly and ooh and aah with the best of them. But I really do not get it and do not really enjoy it that much. Disdain is not exactly the term for my emotion but it does come close. No, this does not make me a Grinch or a grouchy Christmas person. I actually love Christmas and am always glad for the festivities and family time. Decorations are special and give Christmas a shine and an aura, making it a wonderful time for everyone. Trees, bulbs, garland, and lots of jingles and jangles along the way. Although slightly weary of the same Christmas music, I still do enjoy it and find much of it to be nearly magical.
But I really do not enjoy driving around looking at Christmas Lights. Just not my thing. I can think of 100 things I would rather do. Apathy is a negative emotion and the word "indifference" is a little more palatable; yet whatever word one chooses, in the end I really do not care about the lights. Whether there are few, none, thousands, many colors, big, small, high or low, I don't have any emotion for them. They are there, most people love them and they serve a purpose of making people happy. In that respect, I am glad we have them. But I still would prefer to do something else with my time.
Next year? Probably will drive around looking at lights. After all, it is a time of year to think about others and to sacrifice our selfishness. It is the least I can do. But I think I will retain my auditory learning approach and let others be the visual learners.
All this to say, I have never felt entirely obligated to stick to the printed page of music and, instead, have often felt the personal freedom to expand sound when needed or at least inspired. Does this make me an auditory learner more than a visual one? I believe so. I continue to be fascinated with sound in all its complexity and I am well attuned to different sounds I hear around me whether indoors or outdoors. Sounds of birds, wind, cars, laughing, scraping, steps, all intrigue me and I find myself quickly processing sounds and categorizing them. It is my way of learning my world.
I guess this provides the best explanation for my lack of interest in Christmas Lights. Going back to childhood, I recall the inevitable night of driving around El Paso looking at Christmas Lights. Ooing and Aahing while marveling at the effort and the beauty. Many houses went all out for this including luminaries, various colors, yard lights, trees, rooftops, and every type of lights available. I recall my Dad working hard to put lights on our house and many years later I became my Dad! And now driving around Abilene, Brownwood, and San Angelo I still see lights everywhere. We recently took a trip to San Angelo to see their city display of the 12 days of Christmas along the Concho river. Beautiful lights and shapes and fun ways of presenting the Christmas story adorned the banks of the river and we drove slowly in admiration while smiling and expressing pleasantries.
Knowing this is important to my wife, family, and friends, it seems to happen every year. Drive around the city and look at lights. Being a "team" player, I have taught myself to drive slowly and ooh and aah with the best of them. But I really do not get it and do not really enjoy it that much. Disdain is not exactly the term for my emotion but it does come close. No, this does not make me a Grinch or a grouchy Christmas person. I actually love Christmas and am always glad for the festivities and family time. Decorations are special and give Christmas a shine and an aura, making it a wonderful time for everyone. Trees, bulbs, garland, and lots of jingles and jangles along the way. Although slightly weary of the same Christmas music, I still do enjoy it and find much of it to be nearly magical.
But I really do not enjoy driving around looking at Christmas Lights. Just not my thing. I can think of 100 things I would rather do. Apathy is a negative emotion and the word "indifference" is a little more palatable; yet whatever word one chooses, in the end I really do not care about the lights. Whether there are few, none, thousands, many colors, big, small, high or low, I don't have any emotion for them. They are there, most people love them and they serve a purpose of making people happy. In that respect, I am glad we have them. But I still would prefer to do something else with my time.
Next year? Probably will drive around looking at lights. After all, it is a time of year to think about others and to sacrifice our selfishness. It is the least I can do. But I think I will retain my auditory learning approach and let others be the visual learners.
Thursday, December 29, 2016
Escaping the Race, finding comfort
Recently visiting a remote part of Texas, I enjoyed conversations with several local residents. I set out to learn how long they had lived in their locale, what brought them to the area, and any plans for the future. Unlike those in cosmopolitan and urban areas, people seemed comfortable with their environment and lacking in direct and dramatic goals, at least from my goal-oriented perspective. They did not seem overtly happier than their counterparts but they did seem somehow more content in general. Although difficult to define objectively, they did appear to be comfortable with themselves. Many of them had lived there several years, some since birth, others recently arrived. Mostly they loved their world and were not anxious to leave it.
Simpler is the word that we use to describe a life portrayed on the Andy Griffith show or Leave It to Beaver but I am not sure simpler is the right word. After all, no human being I have ever met is "simple" and no life I know is without goals. A surgeon may have goals we deem as profound but are they any more significant that one's own life goals? In other words, the perception we tend to have of ourselves is that our lives are generally complicated.
That said, it is true that the race for acceptance, for money, for status, for constant improvement is negligible in remote parts of Texas. I found it refreshing. No discussions about the stock market, about serving on boards, about the problems of the educational system or the judicial system and, amazingly enough, very few political discussions or religious disagreements. Most conversations dealt with the immediate issues such as the weather or the traffic (funny!) or the local environment including animals, trails, even the pollutants in the air. There were brief mentions of food and some talk about road conditions related to dirt or pavement. In general most discussions were rather mundane at least by my standards. Yet I liked it.
I can understand the need to escape the race, to find solace in nature, to think freely and act without societal constraints. There is comfort in low pressure situations and joy to be found in low expectations. Not that life is normally filled with pressure to succeed but it is nice to give it no thought whatsoever.
Now back to the race and the goal to win. But on the horizon is not a pot of gold, for the pot of gold is found within ourselves. To those who live in small remote towns, stay and enjoy. I may join you one of these days!
Simpler is the word that we use to describe a life portrayed on the Andy Griffith show or Leave It to Beaver but I am not sure simpler is the right word. After all, no human being I have ever met is "simple" and no life I know is without goals. A surgeon may have goals we deem as profound but are they any more significant that one's own life goals? In other words, the perception we tend to have of ourselves is that our lives are generally complicated.
That said, it is true that the race for acceptance, for money, for status, for constant improvement is negligible in remote parts of Texas. I found it refreshing. No discussions about the stock market, about serving on boards, about the problems of the educational system or the judicial system and, amazingly enough, very few political discussions or religious disagreements. Most conversations dealt with the immediate issues such as the weather or the traffic (funny!) or the local environment including animals, trails, even the pollutants in the air. There were brief mentions of food and some talk about road conditions related to dirt or pavement. In general most discussions were rather mundane at least by my standards. Yet I liked it.
I can understand the need to escape the race, to find solace in nature, to think freely and act without societal constraints. There is comfort in low pressure situations and joy to be found in low expectations. Not that life is normally filled with pressure to succeed but it is nice to give it no thought whatsoever.
Now back to the race and the goal to win. But on the horizon is not a pot of gold, for the pot of gold is found within ourselves. To those who live in small remote towns, stay and enjoy. I may join you one of these days!
Sunday, December 18, 2016
Snobbery, but why not?
About to sing in yet another performance of the Christmas portion of George Fredrick Handel's Messiah, a profound oratorio often regarded as one of his greatest works. The famous Hallelujah Chorus usually results in the audience standing as a part of the tradition of the performance. The story goes at the first performance that the King was tired of sitting and stood when Hallelujah Chorus began which caused the entire audience to stand. I have played the French horn in 5 performances, conducted it 12 times, attended 8 performances, and am now singing in the choir for the first time.
Becoming convinced that Handel could not have composed the magnificent work in the rumored 28 days without a great deal of help, I went to the British Museum to study the manuscript. Several hours later, I determined that indeed one person had completed the manuscript and that person was Handel himself. It is certainly a masterpiece and deserves to be performed over and over across the world.
But why do the performers become "snobby" about it? Normal everyday nice musicians when asked to perform Messiah undergo a personality change. They get an odd facial expression with a stiff body language, and a marked entitlement persona. String players expect their chairs and stands to be in the precise spot for rehearsal and performance. They are paid musicians and want to see the contract that spells out all details correctly such as times, expenses, and expectations. Vocal soloists are placed in special chairs in front of the orchestra slightly to the side. When their solo comes, they lift their heads high and gently strut to the front for their diva moment. Their eyebrows rise a little, their mouths slightly altered and they appear to be constantly judging the tempos and the style. The arias in Messiah are truly wonderful and a great singer makes them even better. While their almost excessive arrogance is not a great characteristic, frankly I do not want to hear a soloist who is not confident. The aura around the soloist somehow makes the solo even better. To take it another step, being a musician is difficult and demands years of dedicated effort for high achievement. They need to display great pride and belief in their moment.
The Christmas portion of Messiah always ends with Hallelujah Chorus and the soloists are often asked to join the choir singing. But they generally do not want to do so. After all, they are the soloists. Sing with the choir? How mundane. Yet the excitement of the work usually carries forth to the soloists as well and they often find themselves singing in spite of their elitist preferences. Underneath the persona, they are just like the rest of us with normal emotional responses to great music.
The orchestra musicians demand their alloted breaks and expect to be treated as the professionals they are. While not quite as pretentious as the soloists often are, they have their own degree of elitism and pretension. It is as though an invisible snob fairy infects all people involved in Messiah and gives them an air of superiority by virtue of having the opportunity to perform the great work. I have experienced the same snob dust covering me when I have conducted it. Now as a choir member, I am feeling it again. I see the dust on every person involved and I like the dust. A shimmer of glitter and gold surrounds the musicians and why not? Great music performed by outstanding musicians...does it get better than that?
In my humorous criticism of elitism, of entitlement, of pretension, in a way I am comfortable with the attitude. After all, shouldn't we have occasional opportunities to be snobby, and what better time than performing a masterpiece of music, Handel's Messiah? Perhaps rather than criticize the elitism, we should embrace it. Sure, it is fleeting, temporary, and somewhat disingenuous, but why not? The music is glorious, the performers are amazing, the environment special. The music by Handel is inspired and deserves our very best. If that means we take a few hours to be lofty, bourgeoisie, refined, and classy, then it is worth our efforts.
To all of you Messiah snobs out there...keep up the great job. As for me and my house, we will join you in snobbery. Tomorrow, normal life. Today Messiah.
Becoming convinced that Handel could not have composed the magnificent work in the rumored 28 days without a great deal of help, I went to the British Museum to study the manuscript. Several hours later, I determined that indeed one person had completed the manuscript and that person was Handel himself. It is certainly a masterpiece and deserves to be performed over and over across the world.
But why do the performers become "snobby" about it? Normal everyday nice musicians when asked to perform Messiah undergo a personality change. They get an odd facial expression with a stiff body language, and a marked entitlement persona. String players expect their chairs and stands to be in the precise spot for rehearsal and performance. They are paid musicians and want to see the contract that spells out all details correctly such as times, expenses, and expectations. Vocal soloists are placed in special chairs in front of the orchestra slightly to the side. When their solo comes, they lift their heads high and gently strut to the front for their diva moment. Their eyebrows rise a little, their mouths slightly altered and they appear to be constantly judging the tempos and the style. The arias in Messiah are truly wonderful and a great singer makes them even better. While their almost excessive arrogance is not a great characteristic, frankly I do not want to hear a soloist who is not confident. The aura around the soloist somehow makes the solo even better. To take it another step, being a musician is difficult and demands years of dedicated effort for high achievement. They need to display great pride and belief in their moment.
The Christmas portion of Messiah always ends with Hallelujah Chorus and the soloists are often asked to join the choir singing. But they generally do not want to do so. After all, they are the soloists. Sing with the choir? How mundane. Yet the excitement of the work usually carries forth to the soloists as well and they often find themselves singing in spite of their elitist preferences. Underneath the persona, they are just like the rest of us with normal emotional responses to great music.
The orchestra musicians demand their alloted breaks and expect to be treated as the professionals they are. While not quite as pretentious as the soloists often are, they have their own degree of elitism and pretension. It is as though an invisible snob fairy infects all people involved in Messiah and gives them an air of superiority by virtue of having the opportunity to perform the great work. I have experienced the same snob dust covering me when I have conducted it. Now as a choir member, I am feeling it again. I see the dust on every person involved and I like the dust. A shimmer of glitter and gold surrounds the musicians and why not? Great music performed by outstanding musicians...does it get better than that?
In my humorous criticism of elitism, of entitlement, of pretension, in a way I am comfortable with the attitude. After all, shouldn't we have occasional opportunities to be snobby, and what better time than performing a masterpiece of music, Handel's Messiah? Perhaps rather than criticize the elitism, we should embrace it. Sure, it is fleeting, temporary, and somewhat disingenuous, but why not? The music is glorious, the performers are amazing, the environment special. The music by Handel is inspired and deserves our very best. If that means we take a few hours to be lofty, bourgeoisie, refined, and classy, then it is worth our efforts.
To all of you Messiah snobs out there...keep up the great job. As for me and my house, we will join you in snobbery. Tomorrow, normal life. Today Messiah.
Friday, December 16, 2016
Celebrating the Part-time Performer
The problem of being a part-time performer or performing as a hobby is that it is next to impossible to achieve excellence. Unlike many disciplines where knowledge is finite or where individual achievement matters very little, music is a discipline with a public face. A performer is judged not only by a standard but also by public response. Part-time works well for many areas of life, but not so well in the arts. Let's examine several other disciplines or at least interest areas.
Cooking: The greatest cooks have dedicated their lives to the culinary arts and have achieved acclaim for their results. But it is okay to be an amateur. I may not cook as well as a master but I can still come up with some tolerable dishes to enjoy. Besides that, everyone has to eat...it is a basic need.
Sports: The finest athletes have spent their lives perfecting their skills and their bodies to win and be successful. But we can all benefit from staying in good physical condition. I may not get a call to compete in a professional running sport, but I can still run on my own. Whether fast or slow, I can run, enjoy it, and not affect anybody else one way or another.
History: Historians have a remarkable knowledge base and keep learning more. Owning 40 biographies of Theodore Roosevelt, I continue to marvel at the excellent research and writing style of a high quality historian. Yet I can benefit from their work and can do my own research or study of history. Whether good or bad at it, it doesn't really matter. I can be a part-time historian, even a poor one, and can continue my poor work without it mattering to anyone.
Tasks: Mowing the lawn, trimming the hedges, pulling weeds, fixing sprinkler systems, painting the fence are all tasks that can be improved with practice. And while there is a certain amount of accountability for these and other tasks, there is also a finite goal to each one. Once the lawn is completed, it does not need to be done again. Once the weed is pulled, no need to pull it again. One can keep pulling weeds and perhaps the skill can become quicker, more efficient, more complete, but in general it does not require endless practice for high achievement.
Malcolm Gladwell's 10,000 hour theory has merit but does not address what happens after 10,000 hours. In the arts, 10,000 hours may help reach a high level but, sadly, that is not the end and ability can diminish or it can grow. For the artist, 10,000 hours feels like the beginning of success and another 10,000 hours is probably required. When Pablo Casals, the great cellist, was asked why he kept practicing at age 93, he responded, "I'm beginning to notice some improvement...". Such is the dilemma of the arts and music in particular. It is never quite good enough and requires dedication to the art form unlike almost every other discipline. The amateur performer has almost no role in the professional world.
Fortunately, the market does in fact embrace the part-time performer for certain types of events: community bands and choirs, church choirs and orchestras, clubs, casual events, family gatherings, and the list continues. Maybe it is time for society to embrace the idea that music can be grand, appealing, joyful, emotional satisfying without having to be "perfect." Maybe there is a place for the part-time performer who is not finest artist in the world but still can contribute to a community and to an event.
Rather than criticizing the amateur, let us celebrate that the arts allows for all people to participate, and regardless of the level of the performer, there is a place for the average. Or maybe no performer is truly average and that can only be determined by public response? If so, and it is possible, then the success or failure of a musician could ultimately be the economics of the response. As we rethink the role of amateur, we also should examine ourselves. There is a place for the part-time music performer and it is time to support that role in our society. Fortunately music is the discipline that can serve all constituencies from the professional to the amateur. A call to the community: support your local musician!
Cooking: The greatest cooks have dedicated their lives to the culinary arts and have achieved acclaim for their results. But it is okay to be an amateur. I may not cook as well as a master but I can still come up with some tolerable dishes to enjoy. Besides that, everyone has to eat...it is a basic need.
Sports: The finest athletes have spent their lives perfecting their skills and their bodies to win and be successful. But we can all benefit from staying in good physical condition. I may not get a call to compete in a professional running sport, but I can still run on my own. Whether fast or slow, I can run, enjoy it, and not affect anybody else one way or another.
History: Historians have a remarkable knowledge base and keep learning more. Owning 40 biographies of Theodore Roosevelt, I continue to marvel at the excellent research and writing style of a high quality historian. Yet I can benefit from their work and can do my own research or study of history. Whether good or bad at it, it doesn't really matter. I can be a part-time historian, even a poor one, and can continue my poor work without it mattering to anyone.
Tasks: Mowing the lawn, trimming the hedges, pulling weeds, fixing sprinkler systems, painting the fence are all tasks that can be improved with practice. And while there is a certain amount of accountability for these and other tasks, there is also a finite goal to each one. Once the lawn is completed, it does not need to be done again. Once the weed is pulled, no need to pull it again. One can keep pulling weeds and perhaps the skill can become quicker, more efficient, more complete, but in general it does not require endless practice for high achievement.
Malcolm Gladwell's 10,000 hour theory has merit but does not address what happens after 10,000 hours. In the arts, 10,000 hours may help reach a high level but, sadly, that is not the end and ability can diminish or it can grow. For the artist, 10,000 hours feels like the beginning of success and another 10,000 hours is probably required. When Pablo Casals, the great cellist, was asked why he kept practicing at age 93, he responded, "I'm beginning to notice some improvement...". Such is the dilemma of the arts and music in particular. It is never quite good enough and requires dedication to the art form unlike almost every other discipline. The amateur performer has almost no role in the professional world.
Fortunately, the market does in fact embrace the part-time performer for certain types of events: community bands and choirs, church choirs and orchestras, clubs, casual events, family gatherings, and the list continues. Maybe it is time for society to embrace the idea that music can be grand, appealing, joyful, emotional satisfying without having to be "perfect." Maybe there is a place for the part-time performer who is not finest artist in the world but still can contribute to a community and to an event.
Rather than criticizing the amateur, let us celebrate that the arts allows for all people to participate, and regardless of the level of the performer, there is a place for the average. Or maybe no performer is truly average and that can only be determined by public response? If so, and it is possible, then the success or failure of a musician could ultimately be the economics of the response. As we rethink the role of amateur, we also should examine ourselves. There is a place for the part-time music performer and it is time to support that role in our society. Fortunately music is the discipline that can serve all constituencies from the professional to the amateur. A call to the community: support your local musician!
Sunday, November 13, 2016
Truth and Feelings
Because I feel it, it makes it true. This morning as I ran through the park and saw the trash spilling out of the trash cans and saw various cups, cans, and empty bags, I felt that it was a busy weekend. Not only that I felt that people were not respectful to each other and there must have been a lot of arguing. I decided that the park's general disrepair contributed to the anger and that the city of Abilene did not care about the problems of both the condition of the park and the mean, rotten people. As I continued to run I felt that the politicians in Abilene and probably all politicians did not really care about the good, productive citizens of the world and did not feel any kind of responsibility toward caring for the park's condition nor providing an environment for families and people who get along. Because these were my feelings as I ran this morning, they must be true. But of course the assumptions I made were completely false and an entire fabrication of my own fanciful thinking. Truth is that the park is a welcoming environment where most people are careful to throw away their trash and the leaders of Abilene deeply care about its citizens.
How often do we allow our feelings, our emotions, our mood govern our perception of the truth? Too often, I'm afraid. The human experience is one of emotional reaction to a stimulus, and in spite of claiming objectivity, we allow our feelings to govern our thoughts. Not that all feelings are wrong, often they dictate are actions and our perceptions. Over the years, I have learned to appreciate and honor the feelings of people around me, particularly family members. Although she occasionally overstates a situation, my wife is usually correct about her perceptions of others and circumstances. It is hard to admit, but I was completely wrong when my son's stomachache turned out to be appendicitis. Had she not insisted we go to the hospital...I cannot continue this thought except to say I am thankful she insisted.
But a mother's instinct aside, in my academic world I am surprised how many times people base truth on how they feel at the moment. One could argue this is the natural human approach and to disparage it is to dehumanize others, but in the end truth should win the race and those seeking after truth will be the leaders of tomorrow. Fanciful thinking is fun and can be parlayed into novels, stories, drama, and great art, but creativity should not replace accurate reporting or truth.
How often do we allow our feelings, our emotions, our mood govern our perception of the truth? Too often, I'm afraid. The human experience is one of emotional reaction to a stimulus, and in spite of claiming objectivity, we allow our feelings to govern our thoughts. Not that all feelings are wrong, often they dictate are actions and our perceptions. Over the years, I have learned to appreciate and honor the feelings of people around me, particularly family members. Although she occasionally overstates a situation, my wife is usually correct about her perceptions of others and circumstances. It is hard to admit, but I was completely wrong when my son's stomachache turned out to be appendicitis. Had she not insisted we go to the hospital...I cannot continue this thought except to say I am thankful she insisted.
But a mother's instinct aside, in my academic world I am surprised how many times people base truth on how they feel at the moment. One could argue this is the natural human approach and to disparage it is to dehumanize others, but in the end truth should win the race and those seeking after truth will be the leaders of tomorrow. Fanciful thinking is fun and can be parlayed into novels, stories, drama, and great art, but creativity should not replace accurate reporting or truth.
Saturday, October 29, 2016
Disabled Adults Dancing
Middle son Joel, disabled adult age 27, reminded me of the dance at his recreation center. Not remembering whether the dance started at 6 or 6:30, he was ready by 5:00. This is not atypical of Joel, autistic, precise about certain things, demanding about things he likes, stubborn, frustrating, wonderful, kind, compassionate, and people-oriented. He loves seeing people he knows, he enjoys making new friends, and mostly enjoys the experience of dancing. While I suspect he does not like the music, preferring instead to listen to classical symphonies, he is willing to accept the loud, drum beat for the sake of the others.
This particular dance was a pre-Halloween costume dance and Joel wanted to be a Ninja Turtle. Not going all out, we did get him a shirt and a mask for the occasion. I dropped him off at the center a little before 6:00 and decided to run some errands while he was dancing. Returning at 8:00, I entered the door, heard the music, and headed up some stairs. Looking first for Joel among the nearly 50 occupants, I began to take in the environment. The music was not overly aggressive and seemed to lean on the pop side of music with a teenage almost roller-rink sound. Not being a big fan of hard rock, I appreciated the light fun sounds and found myself grooving with the beat. I soon found myself giving way to a new type of freedom.
Being "Dr. Tucker" has its ups and downs, its expectations and its own set of intrigue at times. As a semi-public figure, I often feel scrutinized for not only my decisions but my actions as well. While this is paired with a certain amount of accountability it can also feel stifling in its presentation. As a 56 year old man with 4 degrees and the title Dean, my dignity must be upheld in all situations, at least that is what others prefer from me I suspect. This can also contribute, although I resist it, to a type of narcissism, even selfishness over time. It results in excessive caution, loss of creativity, boredom, and fear. Live life to its fullest as long as it is within the constraints that have been imposed by others.
Among those imposed inhibitions include the stifling of unbridled laughter, expressed joy, adventuresome spirit, and a myriad of emotions and actions that might be judged extreme. The youthful behavior of taking a risk or embracing one's own fear becomes squelched with aging and with societal expectations. Over time we internalize our inherent creativity and cautiously react with conservatism under the guise of wisdom or even elitism.
The dance was fun. Couples did not dance and there was no effort to "hook-up" with anyone, remaining single yet collective. All were dancing as they felt without judgment and without expectations. They were simply moving their bodies to music and expressing the joy of the moment. They were not watching each other nor reflecting on their presentation. They did not carry their sensitivity on their sleeves and they did harbor suspicions toward others. They did not furtively glance about, wondering who was criticizing them and neither did they make the slightest criticism of anybody else. They did not fear their reputation, their dignity, or other people's expectations. They had fun without remorse and without building up layers of problems for themselves or others. Their apathy about what people were thinking gave them the utmost dignity.
As I watched the group of disabled adults, I realized that joy is not about fulfilling somebody else's dream for you, but it is about fulfilling the emotional joy within yourself. Disabled adults and those with special needs are not bound by the constrictions of societal norms and are not harnessed by their own inhibitions. Instead they freely express what is in them which in some cases could be anger or sorrow or in other situations great happiness or surprise. If the music plays, so goes the body response. This is not the only way to express the feelings that music releases but it is a great way. Watching them dance and have fun provided a balance to my otherwise complex day.
Their disabilities are the ticket to freedom while so-called normal adults live in a strait jacket of fear, suspicion, and doubt. Who wins in the race for joy and happiness?
This particular dance was a pre-Halloween costume dance and Joel wanted to be a Ninja Turtle. Not going all out, we did get him a shirt and a mask for the occasion. I dropped him off at the center a little before 6:00 and decided to run some errands while he was dancing. Returning at 8:00, I entered the door, heard the music, and headed up some stairs. Looking first for Joel among the nearly 50 occupants, I began to take in the environment. The music was not overly aggressive and seemed to lean on the pop side of music with a teenage almost roller-rink sound. Not being a big fan of hard rock, I appreciated the light fun sounds and found myself grooving with the beat. I soon found myself giving way to a new type of freedom.
Being "Dr. Tucker" has its ups and downs, its expectations and its own set of intrigue at times. As a semi-public figure, I often feel scrutinized for not only my decisions but my actions as well. While this is paired with a certain amount of accountability it can also feel stifling in its presentation. As a 56 year old man with 4 degrees and the title Dean, my dignity must be upheld in all situations, at least that is what others prefer from me I suspect. This can also contribute, although I resist it, to a type of narcissism, even selfishness over time. It results in excessive caution, loss of creativity, boredom, and fear. Live life to its fullest as long as it is within the constraints that have been imposed by others.
Among those imposed inhibitions include the stifling of unbridled laughter, expressed joy, adventuresome spirit, and a myriad of emotions and actions that might be judged extreme. The youthful behavior of taking a risk or embracing one's own fear becomes squelched with aging and with societal expectations. Over time we internalize our inherent creativity and cautiously react with conservatism under the guise of wisdom or even elitism.
The dance was fun. Couples did not dance and there was no effort to "hook-up" with anyone, remaining single yet collective. All were dancing as they felt without judgment and without expectations. They were simply moving their bodies to music and expressing the joy of the moment. They were not watching each other nor reflecting on their presentation. They did not carry their sensitivity on their sleeves and they did harbor suspicions toward others. They did not furtively glance about, wondering who was criticizing them and neither did they make the slightest criticism of anybody else. They did not fear their reputation, their dignity, or other people's expectations. They had fun without remorse and without building up layers of problems for themselves or others. Their apathy about what people were thinking gave them the utmost dignity.
As I watched the group of disabled adults, I realized that joy is not about fulfilling somebody else's dream for you, but it is about fulfilling the emotional joy within yourself. Disabled adults and those with special needs are not bound by the constrictions of societal norms and are not harnessed by their own inhibitions. Instead they freely express what is in them which in some cases could be anger or sorrow or in other situations great happiness or surprise. If the music plays, so goes the body response. This is not the only way to express the feelings that music releases but it is a great way. Watching them dance and have fun provided a balance to my otherwise complex day.
Their disabilities are the ticket to freedom while so-called normal adults live in a strait jacket of fear, suspicion, and doubt. Who wins in the race for joy and happiness?
Sunday, October 02, 2016
Orchestras on Strike
Read yet another article about a professional orchestra going on strike. The issue is the same, different city, different musicians, different audience, but still the same. Not enough revenue and excessive expenses resulting in lower pay than the musicians believe they deserve. It once again demonstrates the complete and utter disregard that gifted classical musicians have for the market. It is not due to poor management, weak marketing, bad lighting, missed notes, lack of parking, poor governance, bad programming, or all the ways people blame others. Rather it is a lack of significant interest by patrons to support live orchestras as reflected by the reduction of donations and low attendance at concerts.
The musicians are emotionally distraught as they watch their careers decline in spite of their immense talents and hard work. Many of these remarkably talented people have families, homes, car payments, medical needs, and all the normal challenges of living today. Nothing unusual about wanting to make enough money to pay the bills and lead a life free of the financial pressures that all of us face. But somehow it does seem different in that these musicians believe they deserve more by virtue of their calling and the years of hard work not to mention the investment in instruments.
Is this any different from the recent closing of Hastings? The workers lost their jobs meaning they will need to find a way to support themselves and in some cases their families. Retail is struggling right now particularly in the areas of books, music, and videos. The shocking growth of online purchasing combined with digital downloads, availability of the product, and maybe a lack of interest in what was once valued, have all contributed to the closing of Hastings. We have all seen businesses come and go, change, give up, expand, move, use different marketing methods, add products, take away products, all this and more to grow revenue and/or reduce expenses. There tends to be a product life cycle for goods and the market ultimately dictates what will happen to the product. Such is true of the arts as well.
But perhaps I am wrong in my assessment of orchestral music and classically trained musicians. Maybe it is unfair to expect the invisible hand of the market to support orchestras, musicians, and orchestral music. Should quality art simply speak for itself without having to depend on financial support? Why does everything depend on the dollar for its own survival? The answer to this question requires an examination of money itself. Money is not real...it is a fabricated substitution for value to others. No item, in and of itself, has any inherent value. Not even gold. Nothing. We assign value to all things, people, ideas, if we find the product to be beneficial to us in some way.
Does a trained, classical, performing musician have inherent value? Perhaps from a humanistic view, we would argue that yes all people have value by virtue of their humanness. But a skill or ability is only as valuable as it is acknowledged by others. I may have great skill writing a letter but unless I monetize it or earn money with my skill, then it does not have monetary value as a skill. I may own an antique that I deem as worth a lot of money, but it is actually financially worthless unless it is purchased by someone else. The acting of the "trade" assigns value. Granted, the antique may have value to me in that I was willing to pay someone for the item, but it does not have inherent value for its existence. Should I decide to sell it but never find a buyer, then the antique has no monetary value.
Back to the musician. A French Horn player may indeed be the finest player in the world, but if nobody is willing to pay to hear the player, then the skill has no financial benefit. Luckily, there are still people willing to pay to hear the French Horn player, but there are fewer than there used to be. Unfortunately there are more outstanding players trying to be paid by a shrinking audience. The musicians may be the greatest in the world, and they may have spent hundreds of hours perfecting their skill and mobilizing their talents, but their time, gifts, and abilities are not sufficient if there is no market willing to pay for their skills.
What we are seeing is not bad management but simply a market decline. Expenses for a live orchestra are higher than the revenue. Result? Inability to support the orchestra at the same level. I predict we will continue to see bankruptcies, canceled concerts, angry musicians, confused patrons, and further erosion of live orchestral music. Are there solutions? I believe there are but the process will not be easy and the result will not look the same as it today. It is time to recognize a changing world and declining market interest. Let's rethink the orchestra, the programs, the philosophy, and the purpose. The good news is that many orchestras are doing this very thing and are finding great success, higher revenues, and new audience members.
Saturday, August 20, 2016
It always starts with Bach, but should it?
Our music curriculum more or less grows out of a Bach framework. Johann Sebastian Bach, often regarded as one of the greatest of composers, set the standard whereby we tend to judge music and how we reference foundational knowledge. We have arbitrarily chosen a single composer and his music to dictate or at least be the springboard for all of music knowledge. In a way, this is not unlike drama where Shakespeare reigns supreme or art where DaVinci seems to own the medium, but is it entirely fair or right? Is excellence in art and music not a compendium of determined quality over a period of time, an amalgamation of styles, expert opinion, public demand, and respect for variety?
As an aside, my love for the music of Bach is difficult to express. Through brilliant crafting of musical line, harmony, complexity, balance, and emotional depth, Bach's music demonstrates unequaled beauty and form. It is certainly understandable why trained musicians would gravitate toward the music of Bach and use his craft as a model example of music excellence. This makes logical sense as well to point to one of the finest historical composers who has made and continues to make an impact on the musical world.
Yet there are problems with these assumptions. No doubt there is a place for Bach in our music curriculum, but should Bach's music be the absolute? Have we fallen into a trap of treating his music as the end rather than the journey?
What would happen if we landed on the music of Stephen Foster instead? Using his melodies, his lyrics, and his musical form as a springboard and model example for excellence, could we trace the lines leading to his music onward to music of today? Or would this, God forbid, take us on a pathway to popular and commercial music? Or were we to build our music foundation on the sounds of folk music of the past or perhaps give a nod to the past and land on the music of Aaron Copland, George Gershwin, Leonard Bernstein. Maybe a radical departure from art music and use the Beatles as the model. Or embrace the philosophy of the juice of life through sound and use Far Eastern music as the almost mystical example.
The central problem of relying on the music of Bach as the model for excellence and the catapult for all of music training, is that only a small sliver of the population looks to Bach for musical meaning. Maybe it smacks of a populist position, but should not the masses have a right to determine quality in the arts? Do we as trained academic musicians retain the sole rights to decide what kind of music is to be studied and what kind of music should be foundational? Granted, we trained musicians would like to be respected for our ability and our knowledge, but by the same token, should we in turn respect those without the skill or training, at least to an extent.
We must be mindful about the problems of denigrating artistic taste since our own artistic taste would then deserve the same treatment. Therein lies the problem of starting music training based on the music of Bach. Are we in fact preparing our students for a world that does not really exist except for in a small sliver of the population? Frightening thought.
As an aside, my love for the music of Bach is difficult to express. Through brilliant crafting of musical line, harmony, complexity, balance, and emotional depth, Bach's music demonstrates unequaled beauty and form. It is certainly understandable why trained musicians would gravitate toward the music of Bach and use his craft as a model example of music excellence. This makes logical sense as well to point to one of the finest historical composers who has made and continues to make an impact on the musical world.
Yet there are problems with these assumptions. No doubt there is a place for Bach in our music curriculum, but should Bach's music be the absolute? Have we fallen into a trap of treating his music as the end rather than the journey?
What would happen if we landed on the music of Stephen Foster instead? Using his melodies, his lyrics, and his musical form as a springboard and model example for excellence, could we trace the lines leading to his music onward to music of today? Or would this, God forbid, take us on a pathway to popular and commercial music? Or were we to build our music foundation on the sounds of folk music of the past or perhaps give a nod to the past and land on the music of Aaron Copland, George Gershwin, Leonard Bernstein. Maybe a radical departure from art music and use the Beatles as the model. Or embrace the philosophy of the juice of life through sound and use Far Eastern music as the almost mystical example.
The central problem of relying on the music of Bach as the model for excellence and the catapult for all of music training, is that only a small sliver of the population looks to Bach for musical meaning. Maybe it smacks of a populist position, but should not the masses have a right to determine quality in the arts? Do we as trained academic musicians retain the sole rights to decide what kind of music is to be studied and what kind of music should be foundational? Granted, we trained musicians would like to be respected for our ability and our knowledge, but by the same token, should we in turn respect those without the skill or training, at least to an extent.
We must be mindful about the problems of denigrating artistic taste since our own artistic taste would then deserve the same treatment. Therein lies the problem of starting music training based on the music of Bach. Are we in fact preparing our students for a world that does not really exist except for in a small sliver of the population? Frightening thought.
Sunday, August 07, 2016
Jealousy and Hatred: Othello
The oft told tale of Othello, masterfully told by William Shakespeare, is a powerful story of lies, betrayal, hatred, and jealousy. Manipulated to the point of murder followed by suicide, Othello reminds us to seek the truth and avoid the misdirection and falsification that tends subvert honesty and redirect people into hatred, bitterness, and ultimately pain. Can it be that the Othello effect is just as rampant today in our complex culture as it has always been?
Nearly everyday someone says something to me that is not accurate and is based on feelings, impressions, suspicions, and misinformation. I believe this is due to the idea that creativity and imagination are much more interesting than reality. Throw in a mix of paranoia, hatred, weakness of character, and a strong dose of limited vision and it all forms painful dishonesty and gross deception. Granted much of this is, of course, self-deception and not intended as anything malicious. Certainly there are those inflicting lies with the decided goal of causing pain and suffering, but my experience in general is that most people have the best of intentions. But often they simply lack in accurate information or, in some cases, prefer not to know the truth.
Most of the time this is due to fear, hatred, and/or jealousy of someone or something. Knowledge is the acquisition of truth and the application of wisdom. When we know and understand, we usually acquire a healthy respect or even disdain for the situation, person, or animal. Regardless of the emotional response, it should be based primarily on knowledge and truth rather than irrational conclusions based on falsehood.
Rather than share criticism, negativity, lies, and dishonesty, we should all be mindful of how our words and our actions are being accepted. Even a small lie about another person can compound into serious pain for others.
Nearly everyday someone says something to me that is not accurate and is based on feelings, impressions, suspicions, and misinformation. I believe this is due to the idea that creativity and imagination are much more interesting than reality. Throw in a mix of paranoia, hatred, weakness of character, and a strong dose of limited vision and it all forms painful dishonesty and gross deception. Granted much of this is, of course, self-deception and not intended as anything malicious. Certainly there are those inflicting lies with the decided goal of causing pain and suffering, but my experience in general is that most people have the best of intentions. But often they simply lack in accurate information or, in some cases, prefer not to know the truth.
Most of the time this is due to fear, hatred, and/or jealousy of someone or something. Knowledge is the acquisition of truth and the application of wisdom. When we know and understand, we usually acquire a healthy respect or even disdain for the situation, person, or animal. Regardless of the emotional response, it should be based primarily on knowledge and truth rather than irrational conclusions based on falsehood.
Rather than share criticism, negativity, lies, and dishonesty, we should all be mindful of how our words and our actions are being accepted. Even a small lie about another person can compound into serious pain for others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)