A rare personal story

Uncomfortable sharing personal stories related to health, I have decided to allow a little vulnerability to enter my blog with the idea that this entry may be a benefit to someone else. Without going into great and unnecessary detail, on January 6 I went to the Emergency Room at 4:00 a.m. due to extreme abdominal pain. After several tests, the physician in charge informed me of a deep vein thrombosis in my mesenteric vein, which I was later told is a very rare condition. In other words I had a blood clot. Not fully understanding the difficulty of this problem, I believe my first reaction was one of confusion, after all, what is a blood clot and why would it contribute to abdominal pain?

Keep in mind I had never been in the ER before and in fact had never spent any time in hospital other than visiting friends and family. I am 53 years old, in good shape, generally healthy, aside from an occasional ear infection and the beginnings of arthritis, and lead the life of an academic who enjoys the outdoors and being productive. When the doctor informed me of the blood clot, I recalled my time at the bodies exhibit in Dallas when I learn about the 60,000 plus miles of blood vessels in our bodies and thought one little clot was insignificant. Yet when he informed me I was in an emergency situation and would be transported immediately to Scott & White for surgery, I realized things were serious. By this time, I was more or less fuzzy with pain-killers and had trouble checking into reality completely. Soon I was strapped down on a gurney, loaded into an ambulance and headed down the highway. Still in pain mixed with pain killers, it was difficult to process what was happening.

The trip was fairly short, although I admit it is difficult to remember very well. I do recall the attendant telling someone that "the patient is calm, cooperative, and has a high tolerance for pain." I tried to get her attention to tell her she was completely wrong, but things were happening so fast by this time that I was not sure where I was much less anyone else. After some more painkillers, I recall a room where people moved quickly including nurses, attendants, physicians, and finally surgeons. One doctor asked me several questions that I had trouble processing. Luckily my wife and mother were near to clarify the confusion. The surgical team came in and said the blood clot was very deep, in a sensitive place, and that surgery would be possible but difficult and posed serious risk. In addition, the recovery time would be extensive. They recommended dealing with it medically rather than surgically. Soon I was admitted to the hospital and taken to the top floor where I spent the next six days as a human pin cushion. I had two IVs, blood taken from both arms many times, and lots of terms I could not comprehend. The first three days are hazy as I spent them on painkillers. By the fourth day, I could carry on a conversation and actually remember it. The meds were aggressively dealing with keeping the internal organs alive while working to dissolve the blood clot.

I was released after six days, came home, and went to work the next day. But for one week I gave myself two shots per day in the stomach and remained on a liquid diet. Now 4 weeks later, I am still on blood thinners and checking my levels periodically at the lab. We hope the clot dissolves within the next few months or that the body adjusts itself to the different blood flow. On the downside, if the clot decides to move to a different location, the result could be devastating. I now feel great, have lost nearly 20 pounds (needed to), and have my energy back. Yet I am well aware of the dangerous situation I was in and, in a way, still am in at this time.

In spite of the concern, I am keenly committed to living my life fully each day with energy, optimism, kindness, and productivity. Looking at things a little differently, but not dramatically so, each day is a special gift and not one to waste nor to take for granted. There is much to do and much to learn, many things to accomplish and many ways to make a difference in the world. Mainly I am ever more thankful for my family, friends, doctors, job, church, and the Lord who makes all things possible. May the journey continue!

Letter to Mozart

Dear Herr Mozart:

I am writing this letter to tell you Happy Birthday on January 27, and to tell you thanks for writing such stunning and beautiful music. Unlike many composers who came before and after you and whose music is relegated mostly to academic study with an occasional professional performance, your music has withstood the test of time for many generations. I am not entirely sure what makes your music stand out compared to other composers. Perhaps it is the result of balance and drama coming together for music that is always emotionally satisfying. At times the phrases sound conversational, as if two people are discussing something fun or profound, while at other times the phrases sound very goal-directed, energizing as they move toward a bold musical moment. I believe the natural balance of your music is due to the mathematical ordering of pitches and sometimes rhythm. You might disagree with me on this but your music could be seen as a nearly perfect aural rendition of the Fibonacci numerical series. I am not saying it makes your music objective and mathematically sterile at all, but it does give it a natural sense of balance and flow. In fact, I must point out that the emotional and expressive qualities are what sets much of your music apart from other composers.

To be more specific, your music is sensitive, powerful, clever, witty, emotional, dramatic, and at times transformational. In addition to melodies that somehow are both singable and unpredictable, harmonies that are clever, smooth, and creative, counterpoint that is both congruent and independent, and sounds that pour out of your pen almost effortlessly, I believe it is your judicious yet directed use of non-harmonic tones that sets apart your music. I marvel at the accented non-harmonic tones and the constant motion of tension and repose that your music presents at almost every turn. As a scale moves quickly up, it is suddenly concluded with a note out of the harmony that moves seamlessly back into the supporting chord. It is simply amazing the way the tones move in and out of the harmony while adding so much power to the music.

My personal favorites, you may ask? All the horn music from the chamber pieces to the concertos I will play until I cannot play the horn anymore. The late symphonies are amazing and the piano concertos continue to be enticing. But instrumental music aside, it is those last few operas where I find the greatest joy and unparalleled expression. I really wish you had lived longer but in spite of a relatively short life, your production rate was astounding and, in a way, you have lived many lives through the application of your music throughout time. I will never get tired of listening to The Magic Flute, Don Giovanni, Cosi fan Tutte, or the Marriage of Figaro.

All this to say, Happy Birthday Herr Mozart and thanks for the beautiful music that continues to fascinate and move me. You would have been 258 years old today, January 27 and, in a way, your music keeps you alive and well.

Sincerely,

Robert Tucker, PhD, MBA

The Joy of Discovery

Improvising on the piano is the art of discovering new ways to express old ideas. This is particularly true when remaining in a tonal framework. A word on tonality is in order before proceeding much further. As an academically trained musician with a great deal of professional experience, I love and seek out new sounds and new ways to express music. Yet, the truth is that tonality has played its hand and is most likely complete in its newness at least in the broadest sense. Not that there are not new ideas springing forth each day from creative people that remain within tonal parameters, but without going outside the normal diatonic range of notes within a key, it is difficult to be entirely original when it comes to harmonic expression. Most improvisers are slightly influenced by sounds they have heard before and their improvisation is often an amalgamation of their own creativity and originality with that of previously expressed music. My own influences on the piano are that of Floyd Cramer, Leonard Bernstein, Bill Evans, Claude Bolling, Michel LeGrand, Ken Medema, and the touching folk style of Stephen Foster.

That said, in a way it is an erroneous subject since tonality is a man-made systematic ordering of pitches into Western scales and keys. While it has been argued, and quite effectively, that tonality is a result of the natural harmonic series that exists in the sounds of nature and in fact may be the foundational design of all sound, when we add the human element, there really is no limitation of what sound can be. We are comfortable listening, singing, participating in music that is within our man-made key structure but this does not mean that other sounds do not play a valued albeit sometimes small role in our culture as well. My preference for the music of Oliver Messiaen, a composer who wrote music outside a typical tonal framework, is admirable in a sense but not common in our culture of popular music that people enjoy. Having followed careers of composers and various improvisers, I have seen examples of creative people who pushed the boundaries of tonality beyond that of mass appeal, only to lose the very audience who once responded positively. This may indeed be a diatribe against the tastes of untrained musicians, but it is also the recognition that taste and preference cannot be mandated, and, in the end, the economic concept of supply and demand once more rules the day in artistic expression. This is a tough pill to swallow for a creative artist.

Back to improvising. Knowing that tonality--music that stays within the typical key structure with a tonic note and emphasizes major, minor, and occasionally modal sounds--is the preferred sound for most people, when I improvise I remind myself to stay within that context. This is a challenge for me and most improvisers as we work to discover new sounds expressed within what could be seen as fairly strict sound parameters. When I find myself moving beyond the key and into new regions, I can almost feel the confusion and slight rejection by the people who are listening. Again, some may say this is due to a lack of discernment and education, but I, instead, see it as a vote against atonality or at least excessive creative experimentation in sound.

Yet I love the joy of discovery and it often feels like a roller coaster ride of fun when I branch out of the tonal framework and add new sounds to whatever I am playing at the moment. But I quickly reign myself in for the sake of the audience and cater to popular tastes while retaining my own brand of self-expression. Rather than being frustrated, I find the process liberating and joyful. That of being as creative as possible without losing the very people who support creativity. Such is the journey of artistry as we seek to discover new ways to express art but without the alienation of those who support the arts. My improvisation is only as good as the value that other people ascribe to it. Such is true of all things in the world. Value is in the mind.

If an artist, out of frustration of the lack of appreciation for his/her art, reaches the point where the audience does not matter, then the artist has abandoned the very purpose that art exists. Great art is not created in a vacuum only to reside for the creator. Great art is determined by the people, for the people, and with the people. Such is the dilemma of artistry and such is the opportunity for the artist: to find joy in discovery and recognize the value of the audience who in turn ascribes value to the sound being created. But push the envelope I occasionally must, for to progress and develop is to try new things and new ways of artistic expression.

The Great Leveler

Leaving the hospital, and it was a beautiful day, I glanced back at the large institution known as Scott & White and realized I had been treated royally for one week. No, I did not receive a steak every night nor was I put on a pedestal. My opinion on every subject had no bearing on anything and my body was an open book for all to study. Not one person addressed me by my title and, furthermore, nobody asked my official title anyway. My four degrees hanging proudly on my office wall were not acknowledged nor even known and in fact, completely without value in the face of the present situation. I was a patient with a particular set of problems and the hospital staff was intent on helping me with those problems.

They were not interested in my past successes or failures, my family, my views on church music or anything religious. Nobody asked my political positions on the economy, social inequality, welfare, defense, intervention, the environment, or taxation. I never had an opportunity to extrapolate nor even express my thoughts on business, money, finance, technology, marketing, investing, index funds, or management. None of my musical or artistic thoughts found fruition during the week and aside from the time where I listened to music on my smartphone, I was devoid of musical sound (some of this due to being on pain killers I must admit).

I was there due to a problem and the goal was to fix the problem. Short and simple. Or was it? I became a human pincushion for every lab test imaginable and kept watching bags of saline drip into my system. Fortunately the nurses and doctors were kind, thorough, and demonstrated a great deal of concern for my improvement. Pain aside, it was a pleasant experience but not one I wish to repeat. I had the feeling that regardless of my position in life, the treatment would have been the same. Whether or not a person is famous, wealthy, attractive, poor, ugly, or anything at all, the hospital works diligently to help. Each patient is placed on a level that is primarily concerned with the care and improvement of the patient. This makes the institution called the hospital the great social leveler, and for that I am thankful.

The experience was humbling for me and taught me several important things: 1) each person's job is important from the hospitality services to the cooks to the nurses to the doctors and to the surgeons, 2) your education, social position, money, personality, and your values make no difference when it comes to the care you receive in a hospital, 3) your life is not really your own in that many people are affected by you and your health, and 4) between family, friends, and great medical practitioners, blessings abound in our lives and we should never take anything or anyone for granted.

It's all about the Harmony

People often ask me how I am able to enjoy so many different types of music yet retain my own standards for excellence. Running the risk of a total lack of discernment, I have developed a system of determining and classifying music according to its harmonic complexity and general balance. This is not to say that rhythmic interest, textual inflection, dynamics, poetry, orchestration, form, melody, development, texture, phrasing, or counterpoint are not powerfully significant but it is to say that I am drawn to a creative use of harmony over the elements of music. While my opinion is simply my own, I will admit to certain degree of responsibility due to my position as a Dean of Fine Arts. While restraint of my own views is probably wise, I often negate that wisdom in favor of expressing myself when it comes to music.

With harmony being at the forefront of most of my evaluation of music, it explains how I am able to embrace an eclectic music world and not necessarily reject any one genre or style of music. Granted, rather than evaluate the totality of music based on its harmonic interest, I prefer to listen and assess music based on its own parameters of expression. In other words, in spite of the harmonic simplicity of Irish Folk music (and most folk music), I still have a deep love and respect for the music as it stands. I choose not to compare folk music with symphonic music or Praise and Worship music with Bach organ works due to the difference of purpose, time periods, and basic philosophy.

With this in mind, it is easy for me to compare the music of Vivaldi with the music of Bach since they both lived in Europe during the Baroque period of music. It is also easy for me to compare the music of Bon Jovi with the music of White Snake since they both achieved much of their fame during the 1980s. By the same token, I enjoy comparing the music of Stevie Wonder with Barry Manilow or Elton John. The music of Mozart invites comparison with Haydn and the music of Mahler is fun to compare with the music of Richard Strauss.

While most would argue that music should be heard without comparison and that the early masters of music should be respected for their contributions and that their music should stay alive as the "canon" of music literature, I, instead, choose to retain a harmonic expectation that lifts some music above others regardless of the fame or historical significance of any composer. This practice, however, is weak and not always fair due to the fact that not every piece of music by any one composer is the same and no one piece is representative of any composer's output. I may disparage the music of Meyerbeer but that is based on the few works of his within my knowledge base. I may lift up the music of Brahms, but in truth, I am not familiar with his entire production and am basing my admiration on the concertos, symphonies, songs, and choral works. Such is true of all the composers and music that I blatantly lift to a higher level, they do not make the Tucker list out of extensive study but rather out of preference for the harmony of certain music. This approach is weak at best and serves little value either as an academic exercise or as acknowledgment of excellence.

Yet, in spite of the obvious challenges of presenting my favorite composers or even songs based on harmonic interest, it does seem to be true that music which withstands the test of time or that which continues to be vital today is that with more harmonic interest than music of great simplicity. Thus we see the music of Chopin being more meaningful than the music of Gottschalk. Or we find the music of Richard Rodgers to sublimate that of Gilbert and Sullivan. Preferring music with harmonic interest does not always relegate other music to "graveyard" status and a strong performance can often carry the day even with music of little harmonic complexity. Such is true of the music of Vivaldi, predictable and pompous at best, who is treated to stunning performances by Philip Jaroussky. In other words, Jaroussky improves Vivaldi, making his music acceptable and meaningful.

A performer's ability to turn a phrase or to communicate musical meaning is a gift that supercedes quality of craft, harmony, or any of the elements of music. But given that few performers have achieved the ability to make me forget about the lack of harmonic interest in music, I always return to the music itself for my judgment. This indeed makes me a snob of some sort and a musical elitist with an agenda. I am comfortable with this label to an extent since my elitism is not that of preferring one genre over another or insisting my views are superior to others but is rather based on a particular set of sound criteria--that being harmony.

One other argument against my harmonic interest criterion for judging music deals with the idea that most people are not aware of the difference between music that contains harmonic variety and music that relies on a few chords expressed entirely through diatonic means. Yet I will maintain that knowledge of harmony does not have to be direct but is intuitive and natural to the human response. We may not understand why the weather is uncomfortable but our bodies certainly know how to react to extreme temperatures. We may not know why something tastes satisfying, but our lack of knowledge does not interfere with our enjoyment of the food. We may not know why a particular song or even symphony seems dull, but that does not change our ho-hum response to boring music.

In contrast, when people respond to music positively, I posture that it is partly due to music that contains variety and interest. This factor alone makes the music of Stevie Wonder, Chicago, and Coldplay more interesting and therefore superior to the music of Miley Cyrus or the Rolling Stones for example. Not that I reject their music outright but if given a choice, I prefer music with greater harmonic variety. In my city of music I prefer late Mozart over Haydn, Beethoven over Weber or Mendelssohn, Wagner over Verdi, Brahms over Dvorak, Cole Porter over Irving Berlin, Lady Gaga over Beyonce, Ravel over Debussy, Steve Reich over Philip Glass, Alan Jackson over Garth Brooks, and my list continues.

Back to my electicism that is difficult for some to embrace, it all comes down to harmony for me. Please know that my views are my own and not intended as anything revolutionary nor even influential. This is intended as an explanation for my own variety of music I enjoy.

The Lost Pen and Dieting

Humbled by the gift from my business professors all of whom I hold in high regard, I treasured my Cross pen with a mixture of concern and symbolism. The concern being that I rarely am able to keep up with any writing utensil more than one day. The symbolism being that the beautiful gold lined pen seemed to symbolize the hard work to complete my MBA as well as the inspiration to continue in my knowledge and development in business. For two weeks I kept my pen close at hand, using it frequently to sign forms, make lists, pay credit card bills, and write down ideas. One waitress commented to me, "That sure is a fancy pen!" With pride, I told her thank you that I really preferred it over any other pen.

But it disappeared one day. Gone. I retraced my steps, called around, looked in drawers, under chairs, throughout my truck, in every shirt and pants pocket, but all to no avail. My symbol of hard work and inspiration was no more and I dreaded the moment when I saw one of the business professors and could not present the pen. Thinking through the dilemma, I decided to purchase a new one, only to discover it was out of my current budget. After anguishing through the problem, I landed on a cheaper but similar Cross pen in the hopes it would look quite similar from a distance. Not entirely satisfied with the replacement, I continued to mourn the loss of the original pen while using the new one. A sad situation at best.

One week later wanting to read a book and take a nap, I laid down on the sofa in the living room. I read through several pages of the novel and calmly closed my eyes for a nap. Five minutes later my mobile phone buzzed. Forcing myself awake to look at the caller id, I decided to answer it in spite of my grogginess. The call mentioned we would be having a guest in the next few minutes which led me to clean up the kitchen in short order. As I cleaned, I gave thought to any more forms I needed to sign. Almost haphazardly reaching into my pocket, in dismay I realized my new Cross pen was gone. I had lost yet another new pen. Rather than surrendering to the emotion of loss, I quickly gave logical thought to where I had lost it and returned to the sofa.

Looking carefully between the cushions, I saw the pen and with a smile returned it to my pocket. Walking back to the kitchen to finish the job, I began to wonder about the sofa and the remote possibility of other lost items between the cushions. I walked back to the sofa and after finding $1.85 in change, I felt it...the original Cross pen! Great joy and excitement entered my being and now with two Cross pens (one better than the other), I am a happy person.

But my happiness was short-lived as I realized my own recent weight gain. Too cold to run in the mornings added to an excessive amount of sweets, and I am now heavier than I should be. Entering into a low-carb diet, I will attempt to lose 20 pounds over the next several weeks. It will not be fun and I certainly will miss the bread and the sweets, but the diet is necessary. With a new lease on life including an MBA, two Cross pens, and a diet, I start work on Monday ready to make a difference.

Demonizing the Drums

Walking in the door of the church carrying parts of a drum set, I was told that the drums were a big problem and over 30 people had complained the last time they were used in the church service. Checking into this claim, I discerned that the number was closer to 3 people and the person with the claim was actually projecting his own biases onto other people and exaggerating the information by virtue of his personal preferences. This is not an unusual practice and I have often heard similar claims over the years such as "nobody wants to buy a Ford anymore" or "hamburgers are on their way out" or "thousands of people are pulling their money out of banks" or any number of exaggerated claims with little to no basis for truth. It all reminds me of Yogi Berra stating that "nobody goes there anymore, it is too crowded." I would not be surprised to hear someone say that nobody wants drums in the church, they are too popular!

To look at the other side, sometimes drums can be very loud and dominating (so can a pipe organ for that matter) and sometimes drums send a secular type of message that is rather antithetical to a worship environment. The pounding of a drum set is rather guttural and seems to be intent on damaging both hearing and mental sanity, particularly when amplified or played beyond the point of good taste or musical sensitivity. My experience attending and performing in rock concerts reveals a level of hard drumming that although rather appropriate for the venue, is beyond the scope of most church environments. If the sound is managed by a sound technician, audiences/congregations run the risk of poor management and hearing damage. If the sound is completely acoustic, the risk is in the hands of the person playing the instrument. Both options are potentially frightening (and exciting for some).

Having worshiped in several great cathedrals including York Minster, St. Paul's, Westminster Abbey, Salisbury, and Canterbury, I would nearly argue that a drum set in any of those settings would be a sacrilege on par with being a desecration of a sacred space. With the natural acoustics of these and other cathedrals demanding mostly choral music with little instrumental accompaniment or primarily the organ, drums rarely if ever would find a home in those beautiful cathedrals. Then the question arises, had drum sets existed, would church music have used them or do drum sets merely occupy a place in modern secular music?

While I am not entirely sure of the answer, I must refer to scripture for some truth. Here is a thorough examination of the issue including scriptural references: http://saintsinarmor.blogspot.com/2012/03/biblical-guide-to-drums-and-christian.html. Based on the author's reasoning and looking at the evidence, I can find no valid reason to exclude drums from worship. If this is the case, and I believe it to be correct, the only three reasons for avoiding drums are: 1) architectural design of the space, 2) genre of the music (although this is suspect), and 3) personal preference. Obviously when we discuss personal preference, we must take a collective view or find ourselves in a data quandary of trying to determine individual taste on a broad scale. Another reason for not using drums might be the culture and heritage of the church itself, but, again, this is suspect due to the lack of validity for tradition. If tradition itself is on trial, that will require another and worthy discussion on the role of history and heritage for determining the future. But for now the topic is not specific churches themselves but, rather, the church on the whole.

While the use of drums may indeed clash with the rich tradition of the culture of many churches, there is no "truth" presented as to why drums should not be included in the worship of God. Architectural space aside, the best reason to prevent drums in church is personal preference. And yet, this argument is beginning to sound empty in light of the prevalent use of drums in most recorded music of today. One may prefer to worship God without drums, and fortunately there are many opportunities for this approach, or one may prefer to use drums in the worship practices. Either choice is satisfactory depending on the preference of the person making the decision.

To put this another way, once again we see the market demand of style of music enter the scene and ultimately determine the "best practice" of what is right. We like to argue for truth in presentation, for quality of product, and for excellence in all things, but when it comes to art, that argument is difficult to substantiate by virtue of its subjectivity and personal preference. I may prefer hymns with organ and without drums or I may prefer to hear music that has withstood the test of time in history but to ignore the marching pound of progress is to live in the past. When it comes to using drums in church, it is possible that we have a situation that is similar to the Yogi Berra admonition. "Nobody wants drums in the worship service, they are too popular"--my own quote.

Using a drum set in worship is another example of a cultural clash that goes beyond that of young versus old or "classical" versus contemporary. The cultural clash is that of many parts of current society desiring a musical sound that is current and driven by a beat. Concerning to some, exciting to others, we can no longer ignore this as a trend or write it off as a fad. Fortunately our culture allows us to worship individually and corporately in ways that meet our needs and our preferences. For those preferring to avoid the "too popular" problem of drums in church, there remain many churches whose culture reflects its own rich heritage and demand a worship style without the "beat" enhancement. In contrast, and in respect of religious freedom, there are many churches using drums in the service. Rather than demonize the drums, maybe we should recognize the role of drums in the service and recognize the cultural change that allows many forms of worship.

Is Classical Music a Museum?

It was with interest I read an article about how museums are struggling with using technology to enhance and supplement the experience for the viewers. The article postures that museums do recognize the need to invoke a judicious use of technology in their offerings, but the author admonishes museums to "hold back on ‘audience engagement’ shenanigans with mobile technologies and social media, and accept that museums are not to everyone’s taste." http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/technology_in_museums_less_is_more/14433#.UsMs2LRbRCA.

In many ways the article serves as an example of the dilemma facing musicians and Schools of Music today. We are just not sure what to do, how to give respect for the past, how to prepare students for the future, and how to design concerts and programs that reach people without sacrificing quality and integrity. We love music of the great masters, that which is highly regarded as the canon of music literature, and we believe in the value of that music and are convinced in its vitality and its quality, not just as something historical, but also as being meaningful in today's world. We are also further convinced that knowledge in how that music was created is essential to all music that came afterward. To know Bach is to know truth which is also to understand the future. After all, doesn't the past shape the future? Such is true in music. Trained musicians cannot eradicate, nor should they, the great music from the past, for to do so is to extract a vital and necessary part of what it means to be a musician.

[We have postulated this position for years and continue to do so, but the argument for continuing to teach the music of the masters (defined in terms of a 200 year period of white male European composers from the past), is beginning to crumble with the rise in knowledge of the world and the growth of technology. Somehow our argument is starting to sound stale and empty in light of the all the music that has been produced in history and in regard to music that is vital today. This is a major concern and another example of the clash that exists in culture.]

Yet, we are aware that not to react, at least to an extent, to current trends and not to benefit from modern technology is to relegate music entirely to the past, thus making it a museum piece that vacillates between being antique to being useless. The article about museums addresses how excessive technology almost detracts from the ability to "work things out" for yourself and to make your own interpretations. While the article does not address imagination, it does seem intuitively true that the more gadgets that invade our museums, the more our imaginations take a back seat to the process of learning. Perhaps it is true that when Dinosaurs become "alive" using technology, it tends to "obviate the challenge..." (http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/technology_in_museums_less_is_more/14433#.UsMs2LRbRCA) as well as the purposes behind a museum...to discover, to learn, to respect, and to apply the knowledge in some sort of way.

While I understand the author's point and could argue the same in all the arts, I do not think it is productive nor relevant to voice what smacks of Neo-Luddism and antiquated thinking. If museums can provide "real" experiences through technology or can enhance and supplement the knowledge using technology, then I am supportive, in spite of the expressed concerns. We have the technology, my vote is to use it and to benefit from its many advantages.

The music of Mozart, Beethoven, Strauss, and Chopin, to name a few, is full of beauty, joy, expression, and displays unparalleled genius, and it is my hope that their music is performed and studied forever. Yet, those works by the great masters are in fact museum pieces that might benefit from some kind of technology, and, indeed, they have, albeit rather typically, through the use of recordings, midi, and digital transmission. Music, like technology, marches forward and the public market demands it stay current and relevant. But the tension between the music of the past through performance practices of old, and that of using modern technology to enhance that experience is likened to the problems of museums and their fears of invoking excessive technology. We can fight against the tide of progress or we can embrace it while retaining our commitment to quality and to education.

Regardless of the concern and the philosophical, perhaps educational, problems of the "live" dinosaurs at the London Natural History Museum, the display is popular and very fun. Without that element, they are just memories and likenesses of ancient animals that once walked this earth. When we breathe life into them through digital technology, they take on their own relevancy and historical significance. Maybe Schools of Music can find ways to "breathe life" into music of the past and use technology in ways to enhance and supplement the experience. Yes, we may lose some of the beauty of the past, but the gain is likely to be greater than the loss. It is at least worth the effort and may result in robust programs that make a difference for the future of music.

The Clash of the Subwoofer

In 1974, when Earthquake came to the theatres, we experienced "Sensurround" for the first time. I recall feeling the bass in the room as we watched the action unfold before us. The rumbling of the engulfing bass added to the "real" feeling of the movie and contributed to the experience of watching the movie. Although not necessarily an advanced nor refined sound, the audiences were treated to very low frequencies produced by subwoofers in a studio. Excellent acting and cool sounds did little to make up for a weak plot, and the movie has found a small cult following along with The Towering Inferno and other disaster films of the 70s. As an aside, the film included an outstanding performance by the former revivalist Marjoe Gortner, famous for his childhood role as an added enticement for more money during revivals with this father. But I have digressed from the purpose of this essay.

As a young teenager destined for a musical life, I was not aware that "Sensurround" (a goofy but effective technique) would actually change the way we hear music and thus alter the musical world perhaps forever. The subwoofer became the norm for sound enhancement and we now hear the subwoofer in most musical performances that are not naturally acoustical. Ironically, despite its frequent use and obvious benefits, the subwoofer does not really produce comprehensive, musical tones by our human definition. The sounds of a subwoofer are too low for human reproduction and aside from the occasional replicated anomalous sounds in nature, not fully understood by our ears. While one could argue that the fundamental tones of the natural harmonic series are occurring all the time in nature and in the atmosphere, our limited ability to hear all tones around us prevent us from identifying the extreme low and high frequencies. Not unlike atoms which we know exist but cannot see, fundamental tones are not always audible, but by virtue of their foundational existence, are essential to sounds we actually can hear and understand.

Subwoofers greatly enhance the bass of a musical ensemble and open up the sound to a richness not previously experienced prior to the subwoofer. It is what makes our bodies want to move, it makes us feel the music, it provides a wide range of sound that amplifies not only the sound but the entire audible experience as well. It is also what annoys us when a "loud" automobile is nearby, and it can spark fear in us when we are near a jet airplane or when a tornado is close. In short, the subwoofer has changed the way we hear and respond to music, and there is no going back. It is here to stay and music (many would argue) is better for it.

But the human experience of making music cannot replicate the subwoofer in any kind of natural way. Before explaining further, I must qualify that a large pipe organ as well as a few musical instruments such as a contrabasson, contraclarinets, and bass drums do come close to this replication although with limitations. Admittedly, having experienced pipe organs in large cathedrals, I believe I responded to the sound much in the same way I have felt the subwoofer in rock concerts and at the showing of Earthquake many years ago. These examples aside, concerts of people singing or playing instruments without sound enhancement cannot have the added benefit of the subwoofer. An acoustic environment is certainly appealing but only insofar as the human can perform well. This is not to disparage the remarkable abilities of great musical performers, but it is to say that sound enhancement has dramatically altered societal preferences for music making. With exceptions, we are no longer as enamored with the natural acoustic sound as we once were. We have been given a taste of amplification, of mixing, of effects, of new frequencies, of sound control, and of subwoofers and most people like it.

Herein lies the cultural clash: between those who prefer the natural acoustical sound made by humans without electronic enhancement, and those who prefer some kind of electronic manipulation of the sound. This tension is felt in churches, in academic circles, in concert venues, and in music education where we teach an acoustical approach to music but are subject to the joyful or, in some cases, subversives whims of sound enhancement and sound managers. Few academically trained musicians have knowledge in or even interest in electronics, amplification, woofers, subwoofers, frequencies, or really anything besides excellence in performance. In a way, however, their rejection or at least lack of consideration is their loss, for well-managed sound enhancement can certainly add to most performances. If this is a battle between natural acoustics and sound enhancement, who will win and will the cultures ever merge?

In the end, the subwoofer improves the overall quality of the experience for the listener and most people will agree that it provides depth and warmth to the music. In defense of acoustically pure music performances in an ideal space for natural music making, it sure is easier to deal with than having to worry about sound systems. Perhaps the clash we musicians feel is partly about the fear of giving up a modicum of control to sound managers who have little musical training. But that, my friends, is yet another subject for discussion.

Thoughts on Frozen

Not being a big fan of animation, preferring real people over fanciful drawings and images, it was with a touch of suspicion that I and my family went to see Frozen. My fears increased as I sat through nearly 20 minutes of cartoon ads and a dull Mickey Mouse cartoon. Nearly falling asleep and dreading more animation (yes, I know I can be a grump at times), the movie began.

Not sure exactly when I got drawn in. Perhaps it was the girls building a snowman or the precision of the animation or events of the first few minutes, but I really believe it was the great music. The snowman song was terrific and after the girl got hurt, the score suddenly became ominous with rich orchestral sounds followed by rhythmic energy and complex but tonal harmonic motion. Rather than hearing sound effects from the orchestra, we heard an eclectic mix of orchestral sounds that incorporated thematic motives juxtaposed with appropriate contrasts perfectly aligned with the events on the screen.

The story proceeds rather typically in a type of allegory about power, kingdoms, love, confusion, relationships, and comic relief. In a broad sense, it was a classic "love solves all" kind of plot with some twists and turns including bad guys, good guys, and plenty of tension. But underneath the rather cliched story we find great characters, stunning visual effects, amazing and beautiful crystals, and a depth rarely found in movies today. Little Olaf was absolutely hilarious and the snow monster scenes were intense and spectacular. The hints of anti-totalitarianism, of the value of charity, the problems with isolationism, the value of family, the way human actions spawn events that have far-reaching implications, and the joy of those who are outside the mainstream of looks and behavior all came together for a movie to be enjoyed by all ages.

The images were magnificent and the energy moved forth all the way to the end where everything turned out well. But aside from the tension, the interesting dialogs, the amazing graphics, and the physical comedy, it was the songs that jumped out as outstanding. In a musical theatre style, each song contained harmonic interest, rhythmic complexity, memorable melodies, zippy texts, and goal-directed dynamic growth. In short, simply great songs all the way through the movie. If anything, I wanted more and am hoping to see this show on the stage someday. Probably worth traveling to London if it makes to the West End!

Wonderful movie for all ages. I encourage everyone to experience Frozen. As in all great art, you will be changed in some magical way.

Orchestras, Operas, and Opportunities

As clichéd as it sounds, it is true that challenges can be seen as opportunities. Such is the case with the arts and music in particular. Many symphony orchestras and some opera houses continue to struggle to pay the bills. Their personnel and operating costs are greater than their revenue, forcing them to rely solely on sponsorships and donations to stay solvent. While businesses and donors have traditionally given to the arts, they are beginning to be suspicious of the inherent value and even future of the symphony orchestra. Nobody wants to support a sinking ship, and until orchestras find ways to bring in revenues through ticket sales, they will likely remain on life support.

Let us play the blame game. It is possible that poor management of many orchestras has caused some of the problems. Good managers control costs and find ways to maximize profits, recognizing the value of a strong marketing mix, segmentation, careful accounting, and appealing products. Good managers have a working knowledge of cost accounting, budgeting, human resources, leadership, the future value of money, inventory, and pricing. Granted, the challenges of dealing with symphony orchestras are excessively complicated and require skills not normally needed in the corporate world, but the essence of good management must remain true in spite of the unusual structure of an orchestra.

But management is not the whole story of where the blame lies, in fact management is probably not the real story at all. A manager is essentially an employee of the board, and the board is the controlling and responsible entity of the orchestra. The board has a fiduciary responsibility to ensure the solvency of the organization, whether that is through donations, ticket sales, or sponsorships. The board, hopefully, is comprised of those who love music but also have enough business acumen to make wise decisions for the present and future of the ensemble. And herein lies the tension, the board as the responsible entity, must remain in control, at least to an extent, with the programming of the orchestra. This then means the conductor of the orchestra is an employee not an employer of the board of directors. Yikes!

A conductor of an orchestra has achieved his/her position through a combination of factors including great talent, tenacity, leadership, people skills, wisdom, and intellect. Their leadership abilities are a marriage of musical talent, confidence, and unswerving dedication to excellence in all things. Outstanding conductors, by virtue of their abilities, are often strong in opinions, relentless in effort, and goal-directed in their leadership. Asking a great conductor to bend to the will of a board is difficult at best. When all goals are the same--musical and financial--the results will be positive for all constituents, and the board will be able to pay the bills and enjoy great music. A wise board gives the conductor the latitude to make the musical decisions that are best for the orchestra, the community, and for the cause of music. But how much freedom should be allowed when revenues decline and the goals of presenting great music fly in the face of paying the bills? Conductor autonomy only works when boards, musicians, and community meet all the artistic and financial goals, and when all constituents work congruently for those same goals.

But this rarely happens in today's eclectic world of changing tastes, digital transmission, and unpredictable behavior. What kind of live music will sell tickets and how should an orchestra (a medium with a long, prosperous, and highly respected heritage) respond to the need to generate revenue? Should we abandon the old in favor of the new? Should we give up on the canon of "classical" music that has stood the test of time and been highly valued for over a century? Isn't classical or art music the best kind of music with the greatest qualities? Without classical music, are we destined to become a society of popcorn and candy cane eaters without any artistic sense, living in a quagmire of artistic mediocrity totally devoid of depth and quality?

The philosophical tug-of-war between artistic elites, lovers of classical music, and those seeking a lighter more eclectic offering, although not new, is more pronounced today than ever before, with the result being a significant drop in revenues for most orchestras and operas. For the orchestra to survive, boards and conductors must work together to program concerts that will attract and interest audiences. The art form, regardless of whether it is a string quartet, concert band, symphony orchestra, ballet, solo piano, or opera must be able to support itself and demonstrate greater revenues than expenses.

To those holding onto an unsustainable model from the past, it is time to examine the role of music in today's culture and think beyond personal preference. It is time to embrace a global music perspective that amalgamates many genres from the past as well as the present, while retaining the congruence of the collective spirit. For those who despair that the demise of operas, orchestras, and "classical" music is a sign of the hopelessness of the modern world, I recommend living in a personal cave of recordings and videos while longing for the past to return. For the others, there is now an opportunity to discover new art forms, to try new ways of making music, to embrace eclecticism, to put aside differences and find common ground, to develop new audiences, and to recognize that music is alive and well today in many forms, from many lands, and in a multitude of styles.

Anti-Luddism or Technology Solves All, okay Most

In opposition to some acquaintances and distant colleagues, I am not a Luddite at all. This does not mean I don't often miss the old days where our lives did not intersect dramatically with technology, but it does mean that I see technology as being that which can solve most of our societal problems. Knowing this sounds unlikely, I further see technology as enhancing and compounding opportunities for greater face time and personal relationship development. As I type this entry, I text three people, read two emails, check facebook periodically, listen to a video on using Google Docs, and consider developing my Excel skills. All this while being iced in due to poor weather.

True that all the technology in the world cannot solve the problems of bad weather, but perhaps one day technology can deliver products and goods for those captured by bad weather. Technology cannot directly help those struggling with depression or illness or relationship problems or the myriad of challenges that face us everyday, but it can help us understand we are not alone and technology can also provide data and information to help prevent future problems. A quick look at Google Trends reveals a decline in lung cancer. This could be attributed to a decline in smoking or simply an effort to improve the atmosphere. Technology's ability to disseminate information quickly to a wide audience is creating a new generation of people who are aware of health issues and how to avoid the pitfalls of certain behaviors.

This goes beyond health education and into personal behavior. Regardless of the naysayers I often meet, I contend that people are generally improving their actions and recognizing that their behavior has consequences both personally and collectively. Technology has inadvertently caused social accountability through the frequent use of cameras, Facebook, Twitter, videos, mobile phones, and email. While people may still have problems with rage or theft or bullying, these type of behaviors can be captured and widely distributed. In London while it may be invasive and feel a little like "big brother," there is no doubt that the video cameras located around the city have curtailed many negative behaviors.

Without having any official data, I believe students today are better behaved than past generations. Although I remain concerned with certain educational flaws due to the prevalence of technology, in general I find students know how to access information quickly and use that information to help them. Smartphones lend themselves to tremendous opportunities for knowledge, for insights, for cognitive facts, and for crowdsourcing curiosities. Technology holds institutions, organizations, and individuals accountable for behavior, for truth of information, and for quality. A poorly made product or a poor teacher are quickly identified and expressed publicly (much to the chagrin of some!). Technological advances allow us more time and opportunities to learn new things and to apply our knowledge in a multitude of ways. Online banking, shopping, Facebook, recipes, maps, and now even digital currency have given us new and exciting ways to live our lives.

All these and more have ironically contributed to more free time and more luxuries of relationship building. While some people may choose to have an unhealthy relationship to their gadgets (and I must admit to being tied to my mobile phone), most use technology to increase the efficiency of their day to day lives. This then results in more time to spend with friends watching movies, talking, "hanging out", and having fun. Perhaps over time we will see an increase in hobbies and interests outside of an individual's chosen profession. In a way, we get concerned when it seems that no part of our lives can escape technological advances, but in other ways we benefit from technology in all its complexities.

To say technology is perfect and makes our lives complete would be false, and there are many challenges associated with gadgets and advances. Frustration often sets in when I am forced to update my computer or punch in numbers when making a service phone call or battle the self-checkout line at Walmart. And I wonder about the absurd information on Facebook. I also get weary of answering 50 emails at work each day. I question the accountability quotient at times and fear the loss of privacy due to the constant invasive properties of technological advances. I often wistfully recall the days of a world without mobile phones, computers, and ease of information. But I refuse to be a Luddite and will continue to embrace our technological world with all its glories and the occasional misgivings.

MBA and Education

With four degrees behind me, one would think I am highly educated and knowledgeable in many areas, able to impart great wisdom with alacrity and comprehension. Yet if I could say one thing that I know beyond a shadow of a doubt, it is that I am absolutely certain of how little I really know. My education is not about completing a degree, it is about discovering new things, of revealing truths, of finding new pathways to goals, and about applying knowledge to all facets of life. But as noble as all of this sounds, in truth I remain ignorant of so much.

The more I study accounting, management, ratios, and finance, the more I discover how much I still need to learn. Not unlike music, there seems to be no end to the knowledge required to be a successful money manager. The more I know, the less I know. In a way, this is the journey of a lifelong learner, one who cannot seem to get enough knowledge in many areas. The formal education means nothing without an insatiable curiousity and without an awareness of one's own limitations. In fact, the enemy of knowledge is the unbridled arrogance that prevents further improvement; whereas, the friend of knowledge is a curious mind. That coupled with a desire for understanding are ultimately the spicy ingredients that lead to humility in its totality.

Humility and receptiveness are the keys to knowledge. My knowing that I cannot know everything and that getting an education is simply one way to acquire a modicum of knowledge and skills, are extremely humbling ideas and, at the same time, strangely amusing. Acquiring an education has little to do with intelligence and everything to do with humility, curiosity, and tenacity. Unfortunately, in my case, it simply demonstrates how little I truly know and how much more I wish to know. To that end, I continue my quest for knowledge and will now dive into books, into writing, and into trying to have greater comprehension of the arts and of the world of business.

The World of Music

Having completed my Masters of Business Administration, it is now time to start blogging again. Knowing there are very few readers of my blog, mostly due to the hiatus of nearly 2 years, I feel led to express my thoughts regardless of the readership. Several lofty goals are rolling around in my head for the future including writing two books, pursuing some licenses, starting a rock band (okay, I know that is absurd), and investing in some kind of venture. But for now, let's just talk about music.

Audra McDonald is simply fantastic in the recent staged version of Sound of Music. To me, the classic song "Climb Every Mountain" has become a little bit stale over the last several years. A good song, its blocked chords and lack of rhythmic variety has prevented it from becoming a staple in the broadway repertoire. As I listen to the various songs in the recent Sound of Music, the performance of Climb Every Mountain stands out. Not unlike the stunning performance of On My Own by Samantha Barks in Les Miserables, Audra McDonald sings with great energy, intensity, and expression. A great singer does not sing at the notes and shrug off the text but, instead, applies meaning to each syllable, connecting the text and music in a bold expression of emotion. Audra McDonald does all this and more as she is both authentic and convincing in her performance. The power of her voice and her ability to turn a phrase while communicating the text made me want to jump up and conquer every mountain I find!

Recently discovering the songs of Reynaldo Hahn, I have been listening to Susan Graham sing these marvelous songs. A touch simplistic, they are still very beautiful with mesmerizing expression and moments of peaceful, serene joy. Both sublime and appealing, Hahn's music is the right recipe at the end of a stressful day. Not unlike Benjamin Britten's British folk songs, Reynaldo Hahn's songs have qualities that make them accessible to all people while retaining the qualities often associated with art music.

Speaking of sublime, I got in a discussion with an art teacher over the value of Lucien Freud's art. She made the statement that his art is sublime without being pleasant. Thinking that through, I am in full agreement with this statement. His art is disturbing and almost disgusting to me in a way, but at the same time, it seems to reach beyond the obvious and into the depth of what it means to be human. The discussion reminds me to avoid the trappings of seeing art and hearing music in its superficialities. Great art requires time to absorb and such is true of the art of Lucien Freud.

The song Roar by Katy Perry continues to be enjoyed by all (okay, most) and I find it compositionally interesting. It has some nice elision of phrases, a prevalent usage of pentatonic scales, and some rhythmic displacement of accents. Add to the music a solid performance by a fine pop singer, and you have a hit! It really is a zingy song and somehow always puts a smile on my face and provides a sense of confidence and power. In short, it is an inspiring song. Nearly as appealing but in an edgier style is Applause by Lady Gaga. Her voice is captivating and the variety within the song, including range changes and melodic leaps, gives it a lasting appeal. Probably not for everyone, Lady Gaga continues to reach audiences with her antics and pop musical depth.

But no essay on music can leave out my continued admiration for the music of Johannes Brahms. In spite of my enjoyment of rock and pop music, I always find myself listening to Brahms and admiring his craft and expression. Every time I hear the last movement of Symphony No. 2, I end up ranking it among the greatest works of the 19th century (Beethoven's Violin Concerto in the group as well). And I still enjoy the grand symphonies of Gustav Mahler and the tone poems of Richard Strauss. Who can criticize the late works of master composer Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart? His last few operas are among the greatest works of the classical era.

Back to rock...Chicago, Blood Sweat & Tears, Styx, Bon Jovi, Stevie Wonder along with another dozen or so remain appealing. Fooling Yourself (Angry Young Man) by the Styx is a blast and I have yet to hear a song by Stevie Wonder that I didn't like. Over in the Christian world, I am a big fan of the music of Keith Getty with his nice blend of hymns and choruses. Chris Tomlin is not necessarily my favorite performer, but he sure writes a singable song and continues to sing and write outstanding music in those circles.

Okay, enough pontificating about music. I am probably one of the most eclectic musicians in the business!

Sensemaking and Folksongs

Coming across the term "sensemaking" in my Organizational Communication textbook, I cynically wondered why academics continually make up words to fit some sort of ideology. It seemed to me that "sensemaking" is the normal thing we do everyday in all situations and should not require some sort of term to describe normal events. Yet as I kept my sarcasm going in my head, I also decided to examine the usage more carefully. In all honesty, I was completely wrong in my suspicion, and my cynicism was totally without merit. Sensemaking is alive and well and is a worthy practice for all organizations and leaders.

The author of the textbook referenced a man named Karl Weick which then led me to read more about sensemaking. In its base form, sensemaking is the process of  individuals in an organization incorporating all  information about situations, events, emotions, or people and communicating that information in an open environment. It is also about avoiding assumptions, about team building, and about looking beyond the obvious, applying depth and meaning through organizational behavior. Sensemaking combines knowledge and information with human interaction and awareness of human needs, applying comprehensive meaning to the experience.

As I learned more about sensemaking, I realized the inherent value of the process and have decided to practice the theory at every opportunity. Reflecting on how to invoke sensemaking as a part of my leadership world, I began to read about examples of how using sensemaking can make a difference in organizations. Studying these situations brought me to the tragedy of the fire of 1949 at Mann Gulch Montana. Without going into detail, 13 brave firefighters lost their lives due to assumptions, poor information, poor organizational leadership, a lack of team building, and a lack of knowledge of science. Their decisions were based on intuition and self motivation rather than capturing all the information needed to survive. It is not insignificant that of the three people who survived, one used his knowledge of fires to make it work to his advantage, and the other two bonded together and used collective decision making to find a way out. While tragedy may have occurred in spite of utilizing sensemaking, it is likely more would have survived had they fully understood all the factors at play in the experience. Sadly, the event points to the need for organizations, leaders, and everyone to practice a high level of sensemaking in not only the dramatic events of our lives but also the day to day activities.

For anyone seeking to know more about sensemaking, there are several excellent articles on the subject that identify seven properties of sensemaking to apply in situations related to organizations or in leadership. But what does any of this have to do with folksongs? Learning more about the Mann Gulch tragedy and feeling engulfed in the powerful emotion of lives lost, I discovered a folk song about the event. Called the Mann Gulch Tribute, the song tells the story of the events of the fire and the people who fought bravely but lost to the power of nature (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWLSbWhwTE0). It is sung with a folk type of accompaniment of guitar arpeggiated with varied and judicious uses of simple chords and appropriate harmony. The charm of the song is its simplicity that allows the story to come through in a balance of emotion and objective presentation.

Folk songs are cathartic expressions of honesty, allowing listeners to understand the pain without excessive sentimentality or unbridled musical anguish. Folk songs can be joyous, sad, bitter, satisfying, or simply narrative in presentation. They may or may not make a political statement and they may or may not teach a lesson in their texts. Mostly folk songs are music of the people, for the people, and by the people. As Louis Armstrong once quipped, "All music is folk music, I ain't never heard no horse sing a song." I recall my dad singing folksongs with his guitar and my mother harmonizing in the background. Those were good times and the memories have stayed with me forever.

I am not a luddite and I love our advanced world of technology with media at our fingertips, instant information whenever we want it, and communication of all types with anyone at anytime. But if I could move back time or bring something back to our culture or at least alter our lives in some sort of way, it would be to return to the idea of using folksongs to express the events of our lives. For some anachronistic joy, go to youtube (a wonderful new technology, by the way), and listen to some Peter, Paul, and Mary, or Bob Dylan, or Pete Seeger or perhaps some more modern fare such as John Denver, Paul Simon, Jim Croce, or Bruce Springsteen.

Or take a journey through the world by finding folksongs from various countries such as Ireland, Scotland, Wales, or France or Ukraine. Perhaps a few moments in the Far East to enjoy some music of the people or experience the worship practices of cultures from Africa. It is all grand and points to a world of authenticity of expression of the people. In a way and a bit of a stretch, folk music is the ideal way to understand organizational communication and the application of sensemaking. Folk music in its purest form attempts to give broad meaning to the joys and challenges of life by applying comprehensive knowledge blended with emotion and intuition. Maybe organizations and leadership could learn from the music of the people.

What makes music "Classical"?

I just read a short piece discussing what makes a book or an author a classic. In the article, the author wryly mentions that denouncing particular classics has become a past time for professors and journalists to receive attention or at least a publication (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2013/05/canon-fodder-denouncing-the-classics.html). As I was reading through this, I began to think in terms of music and composers. In academia we have settled on the "canon" of music literature and are comfortable with those nebulous decisions passed down through generations. We erroneously call this music "classical" in that the music has become classic over a period of time. Unfortunately there is a confusion with the term classical due to its usage in art, literature, architecture and music as a time period or, in some cases, a style. Nevertheless, for this discussion, the term "classical" will be used synonymously with the term "canon" as referencing acceptable music for academic study.

To be fair, the greatest test of worth in art is the test of time. When a composition or a composer "makes it," we discuss and listen to that person or the piece of music regardless of how long ago it was created. Shakespeare is great today just as it was during his time. Beethoven is still worth studying and performing in spite of not having any new works since his death in 1827. Many composers have withstood the test of time and are performed today on a regular basis, with audiences finding meaning in their music and willing to support the music not due to its reputation but rather to its actual quality. This makes absolute sense and is to be valued beyond its commercial value and into its internal accomplishments.

But the canon of literature is changing, as it should, with an unusual form of crowdsourcing that is difficult to understand and codify. The people are redesigning what it means to be classical. At one time people simply accepted the decision of the "experts" that a specific work of art is great or that a particular artist is deemed the finest in the field. When it comes to evaluating art, the combined opinions of experts, educated people, time, and an awareness of concepts and interests working together form artistic worth. In a way we trust the art expert who claims Rodin to be a great sculptor, but in other ways it is easy to agree upon studying a Rodin sculpture and seeing its precision and feeling the power in the piece.

But what happens if people become uninterested in the music of Beethoven or Mozart, Bach or Brahms? What happens if large amounts of people no longer trust the "experts" in the field and instead decide they prefer a different type of art? What will we do as academic musicians if the music of Mozart no longer has substantial meaning in the world to most people? How do we deal with our conviction that Mozart is essential listening and worthy of study if most people feel rather ho-hum about Mozart's music? In a way, this is catastrophic. If we have spent our lives regaling the plays of Shakespeare as vital literature for everyone and suddenly "everyone" or at least a majority disagrees, then we run the risk of acknowledging we were wrong and will face the real fear that Shakespeare will disappear. Unacceptable in either case.

"Classical" is not determined historically by scholars or experts, it is determined by you and me and by the 6 billion people who inhabit the earth. How many times have I told people about a great work of art or play or piece of music or movie and expressed my unbridled enthusiasm with joyful zeal only to realize that I was somewhat singular in my view? While there is no problem with my preference, I also must accept, at least to an extent, that my views are my own and while sometimes broadly embraced, also sometimes only minimally loved. In the end, the canon we scholars so love is decided by the people. This is as it should be. I may often disagree with people's love of certain art or literature but I cannot denounce the popularity of the work itself.

For example, I have no particular love nor respect for the Canon in D by Pachelbel. I find it to be excessively dull and repetitive, totally lacking in creativity and expression. If I never hear the piece again, I will be very happy. Yet, obviously, my views are my own and I must live in my own strange bubble of what I deem as worthy art since the Canon in D is so popular. It is heard in weddings ad nauseum and seems to be loved by all--much to my confusion and disdain. Oh well, I lose on this one!

My point is not to disparage the tastes of the masses, but instead to reflect on how the masses determine the worth over time, for better or worse. If music by Joseph Haydn does eventually fall into the black hole of extinction, which will not surprise me, then scholars will need to accept it. If the hymn And Can It Be becomes a never performed hymn in church, which may already be true to an extent, then hymn lovers, of which I am, will need to accept it. If art and literature of the past become museum pieces without great merit in today's world, then so be it. I may not like it and I may continue to fight to keep it, but in the end worthy art is determined over time by virtue of its broad acceptance.

"Classical" is made by you and me.

Church Music Thoughts

About to go for a run followed by getting ready for church, I am full of complex thoughts on music in society and church in particular. Adopting a utilitarian philosophy of church music, I do try to retain my sincerest optimism for the role of music in our culture in both secular and sacred contexts. Sound exists as a rule in our world, and music, a result of a certain organization of sound, is a pervasive entity in virtually every part of cultural activity, earning a place beyond that of entertainment and nearly to a necessity. Music is a vital part of our society, affecting all ages and all types of people, equalizing the classes, finding the educated and uneducated, and melding all types of cultures together.

As an outspoken advocate for music as the great peacemaker, bringing together the masses and the individuals in a bold expression of unification, I often find myself at odds with my own belief system in music. After all, shouldn't I then like everything? But in liking everything, am I in danger of liking nothing by virtue of mediocrity of preference? Furthermore, the musical worldview of total acceptance somehow augers against my experience and training in music. Am I not an expert, at least to an extent? But does my "expertise" work against my globalization and vast tolerance? Hidden beneath these questions is a murky form of bipolar disorder in music called "psychological bitonality"! (decided to pitch a little humor for the musicians reading this entry).

I will admit that these mental meanderings about musical acceptance, mediocrity, training, sound, and other lofty thoughts are making me tired. For the church service I am about to lead, I chose two older hymns (just can't bring myself to use the word traditional), one recent chorus, 3 older chorus that some would consider hymns, and then a simple scripture song. Will these do the trick? Should worship be a trick? Will people hold their scorecard in their hand and give me low marks or high marks? Do I want to worry about it?

I believe that whatever music is sung or experienced in church should be about worshiping God. But, admittedly, I am sensitive to the truth that not all music allows all people to worship God. Some people cannot get past the problems of having to sing music not in their preference base. Recognizing this, at times I wonder if church music leaders ought to post a sign outside the church saying what the music will include. Such as: TODAY IN THE SERVICE WE WILL USE THE ORGAN ON TWO OLDER HYMNS FOLLOWED BY THE DRUMS AND GUITARS ON TWO NEW FAST CHORUSES. WE WILL THEN BRING IN THE PIANO FOR SOME OLDER CHORUSES THAT ARE SLOW AND PRETTY.  FOR THE OFFERTORY, WE WILL SING JUST AS I AM WITH ONLY PIANO AND ORGAN. WE WILL END THE SERVICE WITH A GOSPEL SONG AND USE DRUMS AND GUITARS ALONG WITH PIANO AND ORGAN. PLEASE ATTEND IF MOST OF THIS IS IN YOUR PREFERENCE LIST!

I'm sure the preacher would be very supportive of such an approach to the worship service! Kidding aside, I do spend quite a bit of effort in worship planning and always pray that the music will not be a deterrent to a worshipful experience for everyone. When music polarizes people, it is not doing a good job. When it brings people together for a common goal, it is fulfilling its mission as music. In church, the music should enhance the worship time and the spiritual experience for the community of believers. It should also touch lives and express the sublime, teaching and fostering a greater understanding of God.

So, we'll see how it goes!

Pursuing the MBA

It is all about learning, and being a student again reminds me that learning remains one of the great opportunities of our lives and that in a broad sense education is truly a lifelong endeavor. I recall moving chairs and music stands in the band hall the day before I received my PhD in Fine Arts. The grand fanfare of receiving what many consider the top degree one can earn was quickly diminished when I returned to my office and began moving chairs and stands as I had before I had the degree. Nothing had changed really, it was still work as usual.

Not that I am belittling the PhD which hangs proudly on my wall, serving as a reminder of many years of schooling, of papers, of presentations and projects, of terrific stress brought on by qualifying exams, oral exams, and defenses of the major research dissertation. All that and more ultimately led to the PhD, shaping my academic career and  allowing me to serve as an administrator in higher education. And I no longer move chairs and stands as often as I once did, but when I do, it is strangely comforting and deservedly humbling.

My career is a good one and, I suppose, enviable to some. Why, then, would I subject myself to yet another degree pursuit far removed from my discipline? The simple answer is that I enjoy learning new things and have always been interested in the business world. The more complex answer is that I firmly believe all disciplines and all areas of life are greatly impacted by technology and a thorough application of information and data of consumer activity. Regardless of the discipline, a healthy knowledge and utilization of marketing, financial wisdom, and business communication can be vastly beneficial in fund-raising, in promoting programs, and in setting budgeting priorities. Few in higher education administration can escape those business principles that define so much of how scholarly activities intertwine with current practices in the marketplace. Those in academia who refuse to understand how business works, preferring instead to live in a black hole of humanistic and artistic scholarship that makes little impact on modern culture, will continue to be mystified and ultimately denigrated by the leaders making the decisions.

Justification aside, it has been a rocky but exciting ride. I am now 2/3 completed with my degree and, to my knowledge, am the oldest student in the program. Each course has been demanding with all the rigors attached to graduate school including presentations, projects, and research papers coupled with extensive reading of books and articles. Maintaining my day job as Dean (day job is a myth for a dean of fine arts, by the way since there are several concerts at night most weeks throughout the year!), I find myself working every evening on papers and getting up each morning for further refinement of the previous night's work. Often sandwiching in the challenges of being a Dean with the expectations of being a student, I understand the stressful and perplexing world of a being a student again.

Each teacher has a different approach to teaching and a different set of expectations for writing and presenting. This is as it should be. There is no cookie cutter model of excellence in education, and the key is to adapt to each teaching style and simply meet the expectation set forth by the instructor. Negative thoughts about assignments are non-productive; furthermore, procrastinating with the idea that the challenges will be swept under the proverbial rug is without any merit. For me it is necessary to manage my time schedule very carefully, compartmentalize each expectation, and meet the demands with thorough attention to every detail. This is not unlike being a Dean although it is a bit more intense.

The reactions toward me by the other students have been mixed I suspect. One student called me "Teacher's Pet" while another student has called me an "Overachiever." I did hear one student expressing his admiration of someone older willing to learn new things and pursue a new degree, and I was thanked by another student for providing "real world" experiences in the discussion times. Most of the students have been very friendly, respectful, and not concerned with the age disparity. Since few of them are from an arts or humanities background, they expend very little energy in discourse about literature, art, or music. They tend to be pragmatic thinkers with concern about the future and a keen awareness of current political climate and its effect on companies.

The teachers, an impressive lot in all respects, have struggled a bit to treat me as a regular student particularly when it comes to discussion on advanced business policies, but for the most part they recognize I am there to learn not to interfere. And learn I have and will continue to do so, probably for the rest of my life in fact! Maybe there is something to being a perpetual student where each day is a new opportunity to learn, to apply, and to enjoy the journey. To use a phrase I tend to use too often I suspect--"It's a blast!"

Report: This Business of Music

Krasilovsky, M. William and Sydney Shemel with contributions by John M. Gross & Jonathan Feinstein, This Business of Music: The Definitive Guide to the Business and Legal Issues of the Music Industry, 10th edition. New York: Crown Publishing Group, 2007.

This Business of Music is a comprehensive, legal resource for anything related to the field of music business including but not limited to technology, recording, copyright, trade regulations, videos, taxation, management, publishing, loans, public domain, composers, performers, performing, labor, contracts, and foreign distribution. Divided into four large parts with multiple chapters in each part, the book works to examine music business in its entirety and all the legal considerations. Part One is titled Music Business Trends and Transformations. Part Two: Record Industry Agreements and Practices, Part Three: Music Publisher and Writer Agreements and Practices, and Part Four: Other Aspects of the Music Business. There are a total of 42 chapters in the book with numerous subheadings within each chapter, ensuring the topic is completely covered.

As in most legal books, This Business of Music does not expend any energy in creative interpretations nor rhetorical, colorful language. The sentences spin out with conciseness and clarity, leaving no doubt as to the intention or goals. Well-indexed and organized, this volume provides an ideal resource for music managers whether in educational circles or professional. All areas related to music business are dealt with and discussed in legal terms, providing a complete handbook beneficial to all people involved in music.

The book begins with a short chapter on trends and transformations in the music industry. Labor for performing musicians remains flat and salaries are reported to be low with some exceptions in certain negotiated professional salaries. Most performing musicians supplement their earnings with additional employment and a significant number of performing musicians are "between engagements." In most ways, these statistics are disturbing for performing musicians until we examine the growth of "listening" to music.

As the book states on page 4, "Music is big business in the United States." Listeners encompass the entire population and listening to music in some form or another involves more than 20 hours per week for most people. The technological age of digital downloading and listening directly through a computer makes tracking listening patterns difficult but it has been projected at over 40 billion dollars per year spent on music audio and or video sales. The book suggests we may be at an all time high in dollars spent for music listening. This large of an industry requires a high degree of regulation and requirements to protect both individuals and businesses involved in the creation, distribution, and handling of music.

There are three major performing rights organizations that serve to protect performers and writers. The American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers (ASCAP) collected $698 million on behalf of its 200,000 members in 2004. Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI) collected $779 million in 2005-2006, and SESAC, originally titled Society of European Stage Authors & Composers but referred to as SESAC, collects between $5 and $7 million each year. The chart on page 9 demonstrates the large amount of retail music as compared with digital and device driven music. Licensing agencies are working through the court system to develop a license for digital downloading which could include a comprehensive statutory blanket license for legitimate digital service (p. 10). The proliferation of digital technology is driving forward the need for legislation and ultimately industry equilibrium.

Within Part Two there are several chapters of significant value to managers with Chapter 7 being the most relevant in higher education. Chapter 7 called Sound Recordings: Rights, Restrictions, and Royalties and discuss the law as it relates to sound recordings and the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976. The Act "states that copyright of a sound recording rests initially with the 'author' or 'authors' of that recording" (p. 64). It is often difficult to determine the authors of sound recordings and determination is a process of bargaining with the parties involved, further complicated by the role of the employee in producing the recording. Most of these situations are determined on a case-by-case basis.

"The copyright gives the owner of a sound recording the exclusive rights to reproduce it, to distribute the records to the public, and to make derivative works based thereon" (p. 64). But it does not protect the owner from a soundalike recording to be made nor does it give royalties to the owners for broadcasts of recordings. It does prevent the renting of recordings that were lawfully purchased or duplication of recordings for profit. This, however, does not extend to libraries or nonprofit institutions lending recordings. In the case of databases of recordings, the purchaser has the right to hear the recording but not to duplicate it for personal gain.

Using a sound recording post-February 15, 1972 requires permission from the copyright owner. Because this practice has become common, licensing agencies are serving in the role as agents of owners, including ASCAP, BMI, RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America), and SESAC. In addition a not-for-profit group called the Alliance of Artists and Recording Companies (AARC) has taken on the responsibility for collections and is operating on a global scale by collecting fees for home taping in foreign countries. This is an effort to collect taxes for home duplication of purchased recordings.

Institutions are required to have licenses for using sound recordings and to make annual reports of usage to licensing agencies representing copyright owners. Recent actions by the Copyright Royalty Board suggest that sophistication in technology should allow for automatic reporting of sound recordings, but broadcasters continue to resist this action. A table on page 496 describes the process for licensing, reporting, and collecting royalties.

Despite the best efforts of the Copyright Act and ongoing litigation against piracy, technology continues to press forward and seems to encourage the action around the world. New legislation by the United States Congress including the Intellectual Property and Courts Amendments Act of 2004 prevents fraudulent labeling on sound recordings and imposes stiffer penalties on counterfeit goods including sound recordings and other digital reproductions. Further technological mechanisms are being developed to protect copyright infringement on digital recordings. It is expected, however, that broadcasters will continue to battle the restrictions and find ways to get around the piracy preventions.

Part Three is called: Music Publisher and Writer Agreements and Practices. Of the twenty chapters in this section, the most applicable in higher education and general music management are the chapters on copyright, music for the theatre, and printed music. Copyright is addressed in chapters 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 19, and 20. Knowing the law and staying current with changes and trends in copyright litigation is an essential part of a managers responsibility in music business.

Difficult to express concisely, copyright law has undergone significant changes in its history going back to the U.S. Constitution which states that "the purpose of copyright is 'To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors, the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.' The most recent major overhaul of copyright law occurred in 1976 with the Copyright Act of 1976. When discussing copyright, works that are not recorded or not written down do not qualify for statutory copyright but may qualify for common law copyright for a limited time under the Copyright Act of 1976. Copyright protection is extended for both published and unpublished works, including any recording distributed for public performance. In a sense, although a bit ambiguous, personal recordings placed on youtube are considered owned by the performer and therefore subject to protection under the copyright laws.

Further protection of ownership can be gained through registration of published or unpublished works through the U.S. Copyright Office. Litigation against copyright infringement cannot be enacted without evidence of registration with the U.S. Copyright Office, but registration can also occur after the actual infringement has occurred. Another advantage to registration is to replace lost items due to the Library of Congress keeping and storing all registered items. The idea that an owner can send themselves a manuscript through registered mail and secure registration and copyright protection may have little legal merit. Information on how to register a work is found on pages 95-98 and includes how to fill out forms and select the type of registration preferred.

The Copyright Notice is no longer required to be displayed publicly on a work due to the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988, but is highly recommended and should included the symbol,  the year, and the owners name somewhere on the document. All published materials, including sound recordings, sheet music, and other materials, are required to be registered within 3 months of publication and should be with the two "Best Editions" available. Transfers of ownership are to be in writing and signed by original owner or authorized agent. The transfer should then be recorded in the Copyright Office. This then allows the copyright notice to bear the new owners name.

Fair Use is a frequently used term but needs to be understood by managers since it is often invoked in educational settings. "Fair Use is the right of the public to make a reasonable use of copyrighted material in special instances without the copyright owner's consent" (p. 102). This allows for book reviewers to quote lines from a book or researchers to use extracts for text to scholarly commentary. If the purpose is primarily educational and is for non-profit usage, then Fair Use can be applied for copyrighted material provided there is not a direct effect upon the potential market or value of the copyrighted work. There are guidelines prepared to address "Fair Use" and these should by duly studied by managers to prevent misunderstanding and abuse of the application. In general, making multiple copies of a copyright work to substitute purchase of the work is a violation of the law. Copying more than 10% of a work and making multiple copies is also a violation of the law.

Case law has further determined that Fair Use is not allowed if it hurts the owner financially, is in competition with the owner, or does not serve the public interest in development of news, art, science or industry (p. 104). While Fair Use does give allowances to educational institutions, it is once again wise to obtain a license from agencies or from a copyright proprietor. It is also prudent to give consideration to copyright ownership and avoid any kind of abuse of the Fair Use allowance in educational settings.

The length of copyright varies but 95 years is a general timetable to consider for copyrighted material. As of this writing, anything written prior to 1918 is now in public domain. Copyright  for joint works created after 1978 are for 70 years after the death of the last surviving author. Copyright renewal is only allowable prior to 2005 and only applies to next of kin or original executors of the estate in question. Termination of transfer of copyright requires written notice and has a window of 5 years prior to 1978 after death of ownership. There is a chart on page 119 outlining the options in termination of copyrights and transfers.

Public Domain is a term that is understood by many to be as "free as air." As musicians and educational institutions become more aware of the usage of public domain, it is decidedly ethical to give attributes to original ownership. This issue is particularly problematic with the availability of free music in public domain on various websites. There are many lists and references of music available in public domain but it is incumbent on a manager to know when a work is public domain or still under copyright. Managers should also keep in mind that an arrangement of a work in public domain means the original is free and available but not the arrangement of the work. A unusual development in Public Domain is the licensing under Creative Commons which allows for any usage of works as long as appropriate attribution is given (p. 130).

Chapter 19 is called Copyright Infringement. The chapter reminds readers of the cost of litigation and the responsible parties in a copyright infringement lawsuit, which could include licensees, producers, performers, and writers. Whether intentional or not, copyright infringement can still be applied in a lawsuit provided the plaintiff can prove access to the work. Incidental copying of a work without having had any kind of access to the work is not a violation of Copyright laws; however, subconscious copying of a work to which an author had access is considered an infringement (p. 197).

Every chapter in this book is clear and uses legal, concise language to describe the situation or possible violation, making this book an invaluable resource for music managers. The exception to the writing style happens in Chapter 42 called Technology Is a Challenge, Not a Choice. This is one of most entertaining and creative chapters in the book and essential reading for anyone in the music business. Technology is a major game changer for music with greater access for everyone and instant sharing of music files across oceans, resulting in portability and consumer-oriented music production. Technology has blurred the boundaries of copyright, music quality, ownership, licensing, marketing, and purchasing. The result of the ease of technology is also the ease of illegal activity through file sharing and digital downloads.

As in all problems created by humans, there are also solutions to the problems that will likely develop over time. Although every solution has concerns, it is to be expected that for the music business to be profitable, it must alter much of the way it conducts business. As the music business examines these issues, part of the solution will be to provide protection for owners by adding more security devices and examining the digital footprint of the trail of the sharing. This is one suggestion but it is accompanied with other issues such as violations of privacy and the possibilities for entrepreneurship in digital downloads. As the book says on page 460, "Exactly how the industry will look in a decade is not knowable, but only by meeting the challenges of that future today can we ensure a result we can comfortably embrace."

This Business of Music is a must for all music managers to have in their library to be used as a resource for acting responsibly and legally in all situations. The comprehensive approach to the music business makes this book an essential handbook for anyone seeking precise information on the business of music. The thorough index at the end of the book supplements the several pages of resources, charts, and addresses of agencies involved in the music business.

Story time

Stopping at Half Price Books on the way home from visiting our kids in the Metroplex area, I gave everyone 15-20 minutes of book shopping. This is a typical event for us and we each went different directions searching for books in our interest base. For me that involves a few minutes in the collectible books area, a few minutes in history, a few in mystery, and some time in the fiction section. But my book interests are pretty much on hold these days due to taking a full load of classes as I work toward my Master of Business Administration. With this in mind, I still enjoyed walking around the store seeing book titles, smelling the musty smell, seeing the stacks, and marveling at the creative spirit that sparked all these ideas around me. I just really love books.

As I neared the mystery section I saw a man holding a Vince Flynn book. He turned to his wife who was walking toward him and asked her if she had read that particular book. I am not a big Vince Flynn fan, finding his books unnecessarily violent and a little weak in characterization, but I was curious about her answer to his question. She continued walking toward him while holding hands with her 3 year old daughter who was dressed in a pretty little blue dress. The daughter walked along and although unable to see the books higher than her little head, she obviously knew she was surrounded by books. She said to her mother, in a small, sweet voice, "Is this story time?" Her mother said, "It does look like story time doesn't it?" The lady then told her husband that she had read that Vince Flynn book and did not care for it that much. Later I saw the lady with the little girl in the children's section about to read her a story.

Oh, do I remember story time! Mom and Dad would read me a story at home which I loved (I think Dad actually embellished many of the stories written and turned them into his own creations!), but they would also take me down to the local library for story time. At a young age, I learned to love story time and love the musty smell of books. I also learned to respect the creative spirit that sparked all the knowledge and joy around me. My brother, who became a writer, and I have loved books all our lives and in turn instilled the same love of stories and books to our children.

As I walked through the Half Price Books and thought about Story Time, I found myself thankful for the countless stories that exist in books and for the blessing of imagination and creativity. And thankful for parents who taught me the value of great stories, stories that still have meaning today and stories that have stayed with me forever. I have passed these same stories to my children who will likely pass them on to their children along with a love for books. So I want to say to the little girl who asked if it were story time--"Yes, it is ALWAYS story time!"