After writing the previous post, I feel a need to expound further and clarify my position. The more we embrace and encourage an eclectic approach to music, the more we need to identify those elements that are common to all forms of music making and universally required regardless of the specific genre expressed. Further, a student needs to excel on something particular such as piano, voice, or an instrument. It is the process of excelling that promotes the needed discipline to advance the music making. In other words, a music student needs to focus a certain amount of attention on one or two things in music which will in turn become the pathway for music understanding. Achieve prowess on an instrument or voice.
Know your music theory. Whether a student pursues commercial music, video game music, film, art music, teaching, performance, composition, or church, he/she must know key signatures, two clefs, rhythms, and how music is put together. This is a must and requires memorization, listening skills, craft, and application. While the debate will continue, and there are some fair arguments for letting go, most of us maintain that knowledge of the keyboard is essential for understanding the elements of music.
Know where music has been and project where it is going. This is essential for drawing conclusions about the meaning of music culturally, historically, and sociologically. Similar to knowing history of our country or state, we study the past to reflect and respect the developments that have brought us to this point, to avoid the same mistakes, and to embrace the qualities of excellence that have contributed to the current time.
Participate in the collective experience of music making. This includes ensembles small and large and opportunities for group music making. Enjoy the experience and apply the musical and emotional gains to all musical events. Let the power of the ensemble shape your musical thinking in all types of music. Use the ensemble experience to hone your personal skills with the accountability pressure of being a part of a team.
Use technology to supplement all learning including video conferencing, web resources, recording, mixing, and portfolio development. Technology usage can be invoked in all types of musical experiences from solos to ensembles, classroom theory and history, and a multitude of events. In addition students should have access to technological advances for recording, software, and sound enhancements.
These and more should be a part of the music school. Is this any different from what most schools are presently doing? Not really. But schools need to work to REDUCE required classes within the constraints presented above while offering more music choices and options to students as they fulfill degree requirements. Teach the basics using mostly but not exclusively art music and encourage students to pursue other types of music as they progress in their studies. This may involve more electives in our degree programs or at least more tracks to include commercial music, world music, film, church, and digital options. Mostly it is time to let go of the idea that there is only one pathway to achieve musical development.
Sunday, December 20, 2015
Saturday, December 19, 2015
The Music School
Being a Dean of Fine Arts, and I often feel this is my calling in life at least for now, involves leading the arts in some sort of strategic direction. Rather than simply reacting to trends taking place in the arts world, it is part of our responsibility to project them and demonstrate progress in some sort of way. But in music this is challenging at best due to the canon of great literature from the past that exists to be performed over and over. For some reason, perhaps due to training or preference, visual art and theatre tend to move forward while continuing to respect the traditions from the past. Picasso, for example, was an excellent painter in an old model, with a flair for naturalism and ultimately expressionism not unlike the masters from the past. Yet he did not stop there, insisting on new approaches to art that made him one of great artists that continues to be studied.
In music, however, we have become mired in music from the past. This is mostly due to music from the past being truly masterful and meaningful, containing great expression and emotional content, not to mention craft and beauty. One cannot help but be moved by a Brahms symphony or gripped by Handel's Messiah or touched by Bach's Cello Suites or charged by a Mahler symphony or shocked by a Stravinsky ballet. Having spent my life studying, performing, and loving music from the past, it is not easy to embrace a newer model. Not unlike a reader who loves Shakespeare, Dickens, and Hugo but cannot seem to find merit in Doctorow, Roth, or Franzen, many academically trained musicians have fallen into a trap of only allowing art music from the past govern their entire personal emotional domicile of musical expression.
While it makes perfect sense to emphasize art music in academic music training, it does not serve the greater cause of music's need to have a broad impact on the individual and on the collective. It does, however, serve the less than 3% of the population who prefer past art music over the vast sea of music styles that can be found in contemporary culture. This may sound as though I am an advocate for abandonment of an art music based curriculum, but in point of fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Art music has withstood the test of time for a good reason--it is great music worthy of study and worthy of being at the forefront of music performances in a multitude of settings. Music by Beethoven deserves its rightful place in the curriculum regardless of what current media and market demands are saying.
What I do subscribe to for music schools is an eclectic curriculum that encourages and develops young musicians for all styles and all genres of music and music performance. Let us give students the tools to use to build popular music, art music, film music, world music, hip-hop, jazz, experimental, strange, beautiful, chamber, orchestral, band, children's music, church music, opera, theatre, and secular music. I dream of the music school that encourages and supports all levels and types of music making. A music school that contributes broadly to society and recognizes the inherent value of music of all types, shapes, and sizes. A music school that has found a successful methodology to prepare students for the enormous and varied world of music. A music school that presents the glorious past that helps shape the future, and a school where individual excellence leads to success in solo and corporate performance. A school where teaching children music is valued equally with performing on an opera stage. A school where composing a country western song is as meaningful as composing a symphony and where playing with a rock band is embraced alongside playing with an orchestra. A school where singing an old hymn is accepted the same as singing a new chorus.
Can such a school exist? Not without a lot of work and not without letting go of biases. But I believe it is possible and I believe it is happening.
In music, however, we have become mired in music from the past. This is mostly due to music from the past being truly masterful and meaningful, containing great expression and emotional content, not to mention craft and beauty. One cannot help but be moved by a Brahms symphony or gripped by Handel's Messiah or touched by Bach's Cello Suites or charged by a Mahler symphony or shocked by a Stravinsky ballet. Having spent my life studying, performing, and loving music from the past, it is not easy to embrace a newer model. Not unlike a reader who loves Shakespeare, Dickens, and Hugo but cannot seem to find merit in Doctorow, Roth, or Franzen, many academically trained musicians have fallen into a trap of only allowing art music from the past govern their entire personal emotional domicile of musical expression.
While it makes perfect sense to emphasize art music in academic music training, it does not serve the greater cause of music's need to have a broad impact on the individual and on the collective. It does, however, serve the less than 3% of the population who prefer past art music over the vast sea of music styles that can be found in contemporary culture. This may sound as though I am an advocate for abandonment of an art music based curriculum, but in point of fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Art music has withstood the test of time for a good reason--it is great music worthy of study and worthy of being at the forefront of music performances in a multitude of settings. Music by Beethoven deserves its rightful place in the curriculum regardless of what current media and market demands are saying.
What I do subscribe to for music schools is an eclectic curriculum that encourages and develops young musicians for all styles and all genres of music and music performance. Let us give students the tools to use to build popular music, art music, film music, world music, hip-hop, jazz, experimental, strange, beautiful, chamber, orchestral, band, children's music, church music, opera, theatre, and secular music. I dream of the music school that encourages and supports all levels and types of music making. A music school that contributes broadly to society and recognizes the inherent value of music of all types, shapes, and sizes. A music school that has found a successful methodology to prepare students for the enormous and varied world of music. A music school that presents the glorious past that helps shape the future, and a school where individual excellence leads to success in solo and corporate performance. A school where teaching children music is valued equally with performing on an opera stage. A school where composing a country western song is as meaningful as composing a symphony and where playing with a rock band is embraced alongside playing with an orchestra. A school where singing an old hymn is accepted the same as singing a new chorus.
Can such a school exist? Not without a lot of work and not without letting go of biases. But I believe it is possible and I believe it is happening.
Decline of the Book
Many have written on the decline of the physical book, most lamenting the loss while extolling the virtues of the physical book on the shelf or in the hand. Others take a more practical view with a little prophecy mixed in that the digital book is replacing the physical book for many reasons not the least of which is convenience and storage. Books are now seen as archaic objects, quaint in the way that antiques are perceived, odd little things of no value containing information that can be found within a click or two on the net. Of course there remains the charming but old-fashioned readers sitting under a tree or in a corner enjoying a physical book and they are seen as different, refusing to embrace the modern world, preferring to live their lives as Luddites rejecting technology, deeply suspicious of the digital world.
Having spent a lifetime reading and collecting books, it was a sudden change on many levels when I bought a Kindle and began to read digital books. No longer obsessed with every bookstore I see, I calmly walk or drive past a Half Price Book store without my palms sweating or my pulse increasing for a chance to see and hold books. The thousand books in my personal collection are losing their grip on my emotions, and I am able to go days without studying them and reorganizing them. I no longer feel a need to "complete" a collection or purchase a particular author's book to add to the others. A signed book by the author has no meaning to me and the words "first edition" are just words. Gone is the feeling of walking into a library and wanting to read every volume or peruse the latest acquisitions. Once believing that the knowledge of the world is found in books, I now believe the knowledge of the world is found on the internet--for the most part! I have lost my emotion for physical books--I think.
But in truth I am simply not reading as much as I once did. Still keeping three books going at one time, it takes me longer to finish a book. Audio books are fun and I listen to one almost every morning during my run of 2-3 miles. Currently enjoying the David McCullough biography of Wilbur and Orville Wright, I cannot decide if listening to a book constitutes reading. Perusing articles and staying current with the news are forms of reading I suppose and I look through a dozen or so articles everyday. A James Lee Burke novel continues to fascinate me with his beautiful descriptive writing style and his pervasive darkness and grim study of humanity approach to life. But what used to take a few days to finish, now takes a few weeks in some cases. I am not reading to completion very often anymore. I have been working on a history of the Brownsville incident for several months now.
At one time I raged against digital books but now embrace them. Yet somewhere deep inside, I believe we are losing something dear and special in our world--the physical book. Does our gravitation to the digital world wreak havoc on our emotions in some way that is not definable? As we forsake holding a book in our hands and embrace a digital world, are we in some way contributing to the constant distractions and bytes of information that threaten to rule the day? Having written often about the benefits of today over yesterday, I have to wonder if this is entirely true when it comes to books. Have we inadvertently caused our own inability to focus on one thing? I check my phone often for emails and texts, and I run through web pages the same way I eat chips and salsa at a Mexican restaurant.
Yes I will continue to read digital books and my wallet and time schedule are much happier without the book obsession. But I miss the old days, the book nerd days, the bibliophile days, the collector days, and books in the hand days. I doubt I will return to an earlier time and I strangely look forward to the day my home office no longer contains a thousand books, but I also recognize that I and society are losing something special. Libraries are becoming social hangouts with coffee bars and bookstores are filled with activity. The aging spinster fussing at people for being loud is gone and card catalogs belong in tool sheds with nails and screws. Perhaps there exists room for the hybrid reader, one who enjoys a physical book as well as a digital one. Maybe unification includes room for both approaches and perhaps our cultural goal is to bring all styles of books to the world. We have enough polarizing events and objects in our world and books should not necessarily be one of those. It may be time for us to respect all forms of reading and reacquaint ourselves with what reading means in its totality. Regardless of how one reads, it is valuable to read something in some way.
My loss of the love of physical books is replaced by a love of our digital world. The gain is greater than the loss but occasionally I must commiserate as I reflect on a life of book collecting that is no more.
Having spent a lifetime reading and collecting books, it was a sudden change on many levels when I bought a Kindle and began to read digital books. No longer obsessed with every bookstore I see, I calmly walk or drive past a Half Price Book store without my palms sweating or my pulse increasing for a chance to see and hold books. The thousand books in my personal collection are losing their grip on my emotions, and I am able to go days without studying them and reorganizing them. I no longer feel a need to "complete" a collection or purchase a particular author's book to add to the others. A signed book by the author has no meaning to me and the words "first edition" are just words. Gone is the feeling of walking into a library and wanting to read every volume or peruse the latest acquisitions. Once believing that the knowledge of the world is found in books, I now believe the knowledge of the world is found on the internet--for the most part! I have lost my emotion for physical books--I think.
But in truth I am simply not reading as much as I once did. Still keeping three books going at one time, it takes me longer to finish a book. Audio books are fun and I listen to one almost every morning during my run of 2-3 miles. Currently enjoying the David McCullough biography of Wilbur and Orville Wright, I cannot decide if listening to a book constitutes reading. Perusing articles and staying current with the news are forms of reading I suppose and I look through a dozen or so articles everyday. A James Lee Burke novel continues to fascinate me with his beautiful descriptive writing style and his pervasive darkness and grim study of humanity approach to life. But what used to take a few days to finish, now takes a few weeks in some cases. I am not reading to completion very often anymore. I have been working on a history of the Brownsville incident for several months now.
At one time I raged against digital books but now embrace them. Yet somewhere deep inside, I believe we are losing something dear and special in our world--the physical book. Does our gravitation to the digital world wreak havoc on our emotions in some way that is not definable? As we forsake holding a book in our hands and embrace a digital world, are we in some way contributing to the constant distractions and bytes of information that threaten to rule the day? Having written often about the benefits of today over yesterday, I have to wonder if this is entirely true when it comes to books. Have we inadvertently caused our own inability to focus on one thing? I check my phone often for emails and texts, and I run through web pages the same way I eat chips and salsa at a Mexican restaurant.
Yes I will continue to read digital books and my wallet and time schedule are much happier without the book obsession. But I miss the old days, the book nerd days, the bibliophile days, the collector days, and books in the hand days. I doubt I will return to an earlier time and I strangely look forward to the day my home office no longer contains a thousand books, but I also recognize that I and society are losing something special. Libraries are becoming social hangouts with coffee bars and bookstores are filled with activity. The aging spinster fussing at people for being loud is gone and card catalogs belong in tool sheds with nails and screws. Perhaps there exists room for the hybrid reader, one who enjoys a physical book as well as a digital one. Maybe unification includes room for both approaches and perhaps our cultural goal is to bring all styles of books to the world. We have enough polarizing events and objects in our world and books should not necessarily be one of those. It may be time for us to respect all forms of reading and reacquaint ourselves with what reading means in its totality. Regardless of how one reads, it is valuable to read something in some way.
My loss of the love of physical books is replaced by a love of our digital world. The gain is greater than the loss but occasionally I must commiserate as I reflect on a life of book collecting that is no more.
Wednesday, December 16, 2015
Blogging Delinquency
Quit blogging for several months and now would like to get back into it. During the blogging hiatus, my blog acquired a redirected code from javascript that took me quite awhile to remove. I am not a coder and had a difficult time identifying the line with the flaw. But I learned several new things in the process about coding and computers and eventually removed the offending code.
It is Christmas season and with it comes lots of complexity, joys, and the occasional sadness associated with concern, depression, and loss. But even in those quiet reflections of darkness that somehow creep into our thoughts, trying and sometimes succeeding to pervade all emotions, the threat quickly dissipates as the joy of the season reigns victorious, dwelling in our hearts and expressed through sounds, music, and giving. Even the most jaded among us cannot squelch the smile when seeing the joy on a child's face or watching It's a Wonderful Life for the 50th time or laughing when Ralphie visits Santa on A Christmas Story.
Admittedly, the Christmas craze seems a bit much to me and I could do without the excessive decorating. I have little regard for Christmas lights, wreaths, ornaments, packages, scenes, or snowmen, and the color red seems to emanate everywhere I go, mixing in with everything I see. Scheduling meals, family times, travel plans, all these and more almost seem like burdens in their inception rather than experiencing the joy of the moment. It can make Christmas season exhausting physically and emotionally, draining the energy needed to go shopping, share in the excitement, and participate in the multitude of activities. Add all this to having some ill friends and knowing about several medical problems, and it could all be the onset of depression. Yet I battle the potential darkness and replace it with the light of the world. As Jim Cramer says, the best way to overcome those times of insecurity and doubt is to get up the next day and go to work. Keep the routine and make yourself accomplish something.
Of course the other side of the story is that in spite of the normal challenges of life, Christmas really is a blast. Lots of great music, choir concerts, band concerts, musicals, activity, food, lights, children, and many happy people everywhere I go. There is a feeling of lightness and joy mixed with anticipation of Santa gifts, stockings filled with great things, and meals together with the ones you love. All these and more make this time of year fun. So no more Grinch for me...time for me to enjoy it and be a part of the festivities!
Writing is a valuable tool of expression regardless of the decline of reading in our world. Plus I come from a family of writers with my brother achieving great success in the publishing world of books and essays. Writing helps clarify thoughts and allows us to centralize the complexity of jumbled events that sometimes seem overwhelming. Rather than allow events and emotions to pass by unrecorded, it is time again for me to put these in writing.
It is Christmas season and with it comes lots of complexity, joys, and the occasional sadness associated with concern, depression, and loss. But even in those quiet reflections of darkness that somehow creep into our thoughts, trying and sometimes succeeding to pervade all emotions, the threat quickly dissipates as the joy of the season reigns victorious, dwelling in our hearts and expressed through sounds, music, and giving. Even the most jaded among us cannot squelch the smile when seeing the joy on a child's face or watching It's a Wonderful Life for the 50th time or laughing when Ralphie visits Santa on A Christmas Story.
Admittedly, the Christmas craze seems a bit much to me and I could do without the excessive decorating. I have little regard for Christmas lights, wreaths, ornaments, packages, scenes, or snowmen, and the color red seems to emanate everywhere I go, mixing in with everything I see. Scheduling meals, family times, travel plans, all these and more almost seem like burdens in their inception rather than experiencing the joy of the moment. It can make Christmas season exhausting physically and emotionally, draining the energy needed to go shopping, share in the excitement, and participate in the multitude of activities. Add all this to having some ill friends and knowing about several medical problems, and it could all be the onset of depression. Yet I battle the potential darkness and replace it with the light of the world. As Jim Cramer says, the best way to overcome those times of insecurity and doubt is to get up the next day and go to work. Keep the routine and make yourself accomplish something.
Of course the other side of the story is that in spite of the normal challenges of life, Christmas really is a blast. Lots of great music, choir concerts, band concerts, musicals, activity, food, lights, children, and many happy people everywhere I go. There is a feeling of lightness and joy mixed with anticipation of Santa gifts, stockings filled with great things, and meals together with the ones you love. All these and more make this time of year fun. So no more Grinch for me...time for me to enjoy it and be a part of the festivities!
Writing is a valuable tool of expression regardless of the decline of reading in our world. Plus I come from a family of writers with my brother achieving great success in the publishing world of books and essays. Writing helps clarify thoughts and allows us to centralize the complexity of jumbled events that sometimes seem overwhelming. Rather than allow events and emotions to pass by unrecorded, it is time again for me to put these in writing.
Sunday, August 09, 2015
Sound of Music Revisited
Recently attended a community production of The Sound of Music on stage. The impressive cast was accompanied by a full orchestra, well-designed sets, professional lighting, and constant attention to sound balancing. It was an exciting and profound performance and reminded me of how all the elements came together to form one of the greatest musicals in history--The Sound of Music!
Before I go on, I will give a nod to those naysayers who find the musical to be sappy, cheesy, fluffy, and weak in substance and reality. The beauty of the setting, the bad guys takeover, the family that started singing again, the escape over the mountains helped by nuns, the cute children, the wealthy captain, the sudden love, it all is a bit much for those who prefer grittier, realistic fare. But those of you who reference it as The Sound of Mucus, your opinions are your own and do not do justice to this masterpiece of emotional expression, artistic achievement, and lyrical musical writing.
Having seen the movie over a dozen times, conducted 15 performances, and played horn on 8 performances, I am quite familiar with the similarities and differences between the film and the stage versions. The film is an improvement although I do enjoy the musical nuns in the stage version. But the puppet show on Lonely Goatherd is marvelous and definitely missed in the stage version. The drama and the love story is not quite as defined in the stage version and we are never sure if the Captain left Frau Schrader due to loving Maria or disagreement with her politics. Edelweiss takes on greater symbolism in the film and the lines are generally smoother without ambiguity.
Yet no matter whether one sees the movie or the live production, it is a winner. Terrific songs with harmonic interest, engaging melodies, clever lyrics, and demanding vocal ranges. A story of love, family, Nazis, history, joy, fear, and hints of religion, politics, beauty, parenting, stubbornness, mischievous, and finally courage. It has all the elements needed for success with the film including outstanding performances in acting and singing. Only the coldest of hearts can ignore the "you brought music back into the house." Or the rich song "Something Good." All these and more make Sound of Music timeless and a musical for all ages. There is something in it for everyone, perhaps a tension or a song that hits the spot.
So even you tired of Sound of Music people out there owe it to yourself to go see the stage version and watch the movie. It is one of those musicals that makes the world a better place and will put a smile on your face and a little warmth in your heart. Toss out the cynicism and enjoy it for what it is...pure joy and meaning.
Before I go on, I will give a nod to those naysayers who find the musical to be sappy, cheesy, fluffy, and weak in substance and reality. The beauty of the setting, the bad guys takeover, the family that started singing again, the escape over the mountains helped by nuns, the cute children, the wealthy captain, the sudden love, it all is a bit much for those who prefer grittier, realistic fare. But those of you who reference it as The Sound of Mucus, your opinions are your own and do not do justice to this masterpiece of emotional expression, artistic achievement, and lyrical musical writing.
Having seen the movie over a dozen times, conducted 15 performances, and played horn on 8 performances, I am quite familiar with the similarities and differences between the film and the stage versions. The film is an improvement although I do enjoy the musical nuns in the stage version. But the puppet show on Lonely Goatherd is marvelous and definitely missed in the stage version. The drama and the love story is not quite as defined in the stage version and we are never sure if the Captain left Frau Schrader due to loving Maria or disagreement with her politics. Edelweiss takes on greater symbolism in the film and the lines are generally smoother without ambiguity.
Yet no matter whether one sees the movie or the live production, it is a winner. Terrific songs with harmonic interest, engaging melodies, clever lyrics, and demanding vocal ranges. A story of love, family, Nazis, history, joy, fear, and hints of religion, politics, beauty, parenting, stubbornness, mischievous, and finally courage. It has all the elements needed for success with the film including outstanding performances in acting and singing. Only the coldest of hearts can ignore the "you brought music back into the house." Or the rich song "Something Good." All these and more make Sound of Music timeless and a musical for all ages. There is something in it for everyone, perhaps a tension or a song that hits the spot.
So even you tired of Sound of Music people out there owe it to yourself to go see the stage version and watch the movie. It is one of those musicals that makes the world a better place and will put a smile on your face and a little warmth in your heart. Toss out the cynicism and enjoy it for what it is...pure joy and meaning.
Wednesday, July 08, 2015
Zip Line Euphoria
Fishing with no luck and adding to my sunburn, I decided to experience the zip line that hung over the lake like a delicious chocolate bar dangling in front of me waiting for me to grab it. Expense aside, and it was on the pricey side, I enjoy the euphoria that accompanies zip lines. The illusion of control of the world as nature is conquered is both frightening and liberating as you speed down a cable to the landing point and glance at the world below. While you feel in charge and powerful, reigning over the land, in truth you are completely at the mercy of the harness and the cable, resulting in total powerlessness. Maybe it is the Yertle the Turtle syndrome where you want to be higher than everybody else but in the end you could end up in the mud!
Perhaps it is the sensation-seeking side of wanting thrills or maybe my enjoyment, almost obsession, with being outdoors and feeling the wind on my face. Whatever the reason, I love riding zip lines and plan to do more. This particular zip line went over a large lake and had no braking system on it at all. Coming in quite fast, I had the momentary fear that the large spring at the end would not be able to stop my ride. But it did with a strong jolt and suddenly my moment of speeding along a cable over a lake was over. It was great fun and I am ready to go again!
Imagine a world where we could zip from place to place without cars, where we walk from station to station, zip across town or even from town to town or across the country at high speeds. Rather than being enclosed in a plane, train, or automobile, we all benefit from the air, from nature, from being active and outdoors. Onward to more zip lines, more fun, and more euphoria!
Perhaps it is the sensation-seeking side of wanting thrills or maybe my enjoyment, almost obsession, with being outdoors and feeling the wind on my face. Whatever the reason, I love riding zip lines and plan to do more. This particular zip line went over a large lake and had no braking system on it at all. Coming in quite fast, I had the momentary fear that the large spring at the end would not be able to stop my ride. But it did with a strong jolt and suddenly my moment of speeding along a cable over a lake was over. It was great fun and I am ready to go again!
Imagine a world where we could zip from place to place without cars, where we walk from station to station, zip across town or even from town to town or across the country at high speeds. Rather than being enclosed in a plane, train, or automobile, we all benefit from the air, from nature, from being active and outdoors. Onward to more zip lines, more fun, and more euphoria!
Tuesday, July 07, 2015
Ideas for the future in higher education
Having spent much of my career in small private institutions, I wish to articulate 6 broad goals or strategies for the future with sub-targets within the broad goals. I will expand on these in subsequent blogs. These are in no particular order and are simply, and obviously, my opinion without any kind of endorsement. Institutional goals are different from individual goals without being entirely exclusive. No institutional goal has merit without individual and collective effort, and no goal can be met without acceptance. Regardless of the disclaimer, the following are based on experience and perception of trends and institutional needs.
1) We must embrace technology completely and comprehensively, 2) We need to encourage and support experiential learning, 3) We need to allow for student choice while focusing on relevance, 4) We need to reduce costs, 5) We need to create new programs and lose old ones, and 6) We should support student and faculty research.
As in all matters, integrity must rule the day and, as alluded earlier, nothing can be accomplished without belief in the target goal. Yet there is no doubt that for higher education to continue to thrive and make a difference in lives while making an impact on society and culture, it must adapt to a quickly changing world. The college experience is an invaluable one and treasured by people throughout their lives. We continue to cheer for the mascots and continue to be proud of our Alma mater, always desiring victories on the field and in the classroom. But we cannot operate in the same way, doing the same things we have always done, replicating our own collegiate experiences, hoping our students will follow in our footsteps. It is time to take a risk within the boundaries of our mission, accreditation, integrity, and the community we wish to design.
The mission of the institution is central to all we do and should be fully embraced by all constituents, driving the institution forward in its curriculum, its delivery, and its quality. The mission should not inhibit creativity nor stifle innovation, but instead should serve as a catalyst for development and improvement through higher expectations by nurturing an environment of creativity and unbridled ideas. These higher expectations, achieved through innovation and progression of curriculum, have the ability to transform not only learning but the institution itself.
Roll up your sleeves and let's get to work.
1) We must embrace technology completely and comprehensively, 2) We need to encourage and support experiential learning, 3) We need to allow for student choice while focusing on relevance, 4) We need to reduce costs, 5) We need to create new programs and lose old ones, and 6) We should support student and faculty research.
As in all matters, integrity must rule the day and, as alluded earlier, nothing can be accomplished without belief in the target goal. Yet there is no doubt that for higher education to continue to thrive and make a difference in lives while making an impact on society and culture, it must adapt to a quickly changing world. The college experience is an invaluable one and treasured by people throughout their lives. We continue to cheer for the mascots and continue to be proud of our Alma mater, always desiring victories on the field and in the classroom. But we cannot operate in the same way, doing the same things we have always done, replicating our own collegiate experiences, hoping our students will follow in our footsteps. It is time to take a risk within the boundaries of our mission, accreditation, integrity, and the community we wish to design.
The mission of the institution is central to all we do and should be fully embraced by all constituents, driving the institution forward in its curriculum, its delivery, and its quality. The mission should not inhibit creativity nor stifle innovation, but instead should serve as a catalyst for development and improvement through higher expectations by nurturing an environment of creativity and unbridled ideas. These higher expectations, achieved through innovation and progression of curriculum, have the ability to transform not only learning but the institution itself.
Roll up your sleeves and let's get to work.
Saturday, June 20, 2015
The Liberal Arts Institution
Sometimes cultural attitudes shift in thought and philosophy, reshaping the way we think and the way we respond to certain events be they sociological, spiritual, or economic. I recall as a child growing up in the 60s, many young adults had an "anti-war" mentality that resulted in a type of disdain for anyone who would enlist in the military or even accept the draft. The "heroes" of the time were not those fighting for human freedom and trying to end the tyranny but rather those who evaded the draft and carried peace signs. Returning troops were sometimes booed and hissed as they disembarked from a plane upon their return from the fighting. Students talked naively and inanely about an "immoral" war and the benefits of isolationism.
Yet time marched onward, as it is wont to do, and now society holds in high regard those brave men and women who fought and currently fight for our country and for our freedoms we enjoy. We honor and elevate the military as it defends our country, fights for democracy, and wars against terrorism. We as a society have changed and will continue to do so in some way. Those not in favor of military service remain silent. Cultural shifting gives us more tolerance for differences, public concern about the environment, less dogma, awareness of global trends, more medical breakthroughs, fewer physical books, more knowledge, social connectivity, and maybe less dependence on one person. Technology provides, at least to an extent, the knowledge needed to catapult our interests to another level.
Being a hat wearer, I have noticed pictures from the first half of the twentieth century showing that most men wore hats. It is always a pleasure to walk into an old building and find a hat rack. Today students often wear caps but they leave them on in a building and there are rarely, if ever, hat racks. Society changed and the bald, hat wearing man is now discriminated against and has no place to hang his hat! But we will arise and our time will come again. With our ascension into our rightful place, we will see the return of the hat rack (actually I kind of doubt it will happen!).
The growth of the non-denominational church came partly in response to denominational restrictions and the frequent parlaying of theological ideals within each church. Growing weary of such dissension, people began to form their own churches apart from denominational association. While the loss in collective giving has been painful, for many the freedom is worth the loss. Such activity is an example of shifting cultural changes in spiritual formation.
In higher education, we are in a change of some kind with a multitude of opinions and shifting attitudes toward education and the future. Many will argue that college can no longer serve its liberal arts practices and that all training should be professional and career-oriented. Others hold steadfastly to the liberal arts concept of higher education that respects the well-rounded thinker, the graduate with knowledge in many areas, the student who contributes to society through refinement, who recognizes the heritage of our world but who possesses the skill to avoid past mistakes, the person whose mind and body have the discipline for facing the future with courage, conviction, and productivity. All these goals and more comprise the purpose of the liberal arts education.
But the flurry of professional and technical schools now threatens the core of a liberal arts education. Students, their parents, even politicians are no longer focusing on the benefits of a broad-based education that includes history, math, science, English, arts, philosophy, and physical well being. Instead, the concern seems to be gainful employment upon graduation and the skills needed for career success. In this case, the customer has moved from the faculty member to the student to the employer. Do we in traditional liberal arts institutions retain our heritage of the liberal arts that goes back to Greek philosophers and forms the core of what it means to be an educated person? Or do we discard all that liberal arts represents and simply teach the skills and knowledge required for a chosen profession? The old adage of teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime can be argued on either side of the equation. Should we give him the knowledge needed to fish, hunt, farm, cook? Should we teach him to fish so that he works to alleviate world hunger, invest resources, contribute positively to society? Does he need to understand the environment, physics, biology, business, the arts, his own health, the chemical makeup of fish, perhaps other languages in case he encounters people from foreign countries?
The question, however, is what to do? What do students need to know for their future? Specific skills or broad knowledge or both? Where will we land on this controversy? Will we abandon the educational practices that have served higher education so well or do we desperately hold on to a model that no longer is effective? Is there a balance?
The road to truth is often painful but clear and it seems to me that the answer lies in an eclectic and guided curriculum with a directed and comprehensive invoking of technology. Colleges must be nimble, holding to the ideals of what an education means but respecting employers' need for skilled employees and entrepreneurship. Obviously supply and demand will ultimately rule the day and will shape the forces of college curriculum, but meanwhile it is time for colleges and employers to recognize those areas that technology can provide and those areas where face to face learning needs to happen. Not entirely sure of the answer, I believe a reduction in broad liberal arts courses, increased choice in classes, and professional tracks toward employment are the trajectories of the colleges of the future. Thrown in the mix will be more use of technology, online courses, video, experiential learning, and interactive education.
Rather than fighting the change and insisting on the past, colleges must embrace the change if they are to survive. Schools with substantial endowments will continue the journey established by the past, but other schools must find new ways to educate students for the future. Such is the way of cultural change.
Yet time marched onward, as it is wont to do, and now society holds in high regard those brave men and women who fought and currently fight for our country and for our freedoms we enjoy. We honor and elevate the military as it defends our country, fights for democracy, and wars against terrorism. We as a society have changed and will continue to do so in some way. Those not in favor of military service remain silent. Cultural shifting gives us more tolerance for differences, public concern about the environment, less dogma, awareness of global trends, more medical breakthroughs, fewer physical books, more knowledge, social connectivity, and maybe less dependence on one person. Technology provides, at least to an extent, the knowledge needed to catapult our interests to another level.
Being a hat wearer, I have noticed pictures from the first half of the twentieth century showing that most men wore hats. It is always a pleasure to walk into an old building and find a hat rack. Today students often wear caps but they leave them on in a building and there are rarely, if ever, hat racks. Society changed and the bald, hat wearing man is now discriminated against and has no place to hang his hat! But we will arise and our time will come again. With our ascension into our rightful place, we will see the return of the hat rack (actually I kind of doubt it will happen!).
The growth of the non-denominational church came partly in response to denominational restrictions and the frequent parlaying of theological ideals within each church. Growing weary of such dissension, people began to form their own churches apart from denominational association. While the loss in collective giving has been painful, for many the freedom is worth the loss. Such activity is an example of shifting cultural changes in spiritual formation.
In higher education, we are in a change of some kind with a multitude of opinions and shifting attitudes toward education and the future. Many will argue that college can no longer serve its liberal arts practices and that all training should be professional and career-oriented. Others hold steadfastly to the liberal arts concept of higher education that respects the well-rounded thinker, the graduate with knowledge in many areas, the student who contributes to society through refinement, who recognizes the heritage of our world but who possesses the skill to avoid past mistakes, the person whose mind and body have the discipline for facing the future with courage, conviction, and productivity. All these goals and more comprise the purpose of the liberal arts education.
But the flurry of professional and technical schools now threatens the core of a liberal arts education. Students, their parents, even politicians are no longer focusing on the benefits of a broad-based education that includes history, math, science, English, arts, philosophy, and physical well being. Instead, the concern seems to be gainful employment upon graduation and the skills needed for career success. In this case, the customer has moved from the faculty member to the student to the employer. Do we in traditional liberal arts institutions retain our heritage of the liberal arts that goes back to Greek philosophers and forms the core of what it means to be an educated person? Or do we discard all that liberal arts represents and simply teach the skills and knowledge required for a chosen profession? The old adage of teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime can be argued on either side of the equation. Should we give him the knowledge needed to fish, hunt, farm, cook? Should we teach him to fish so that he works to alleviate world hunger, invest resources, contribute positively to society? Does he need to understand the environment, physics, biology, business, the arts, his own health, the chemical makeup of fish, perhaps other languages in case he encounters people from foreign countries?
The question, however, is what to do? What do students need to know for their future? Specific skills or broad knowledge or both? Where will we land on this controversy? Will we abandon the educational practices that have served higher education so well or do we desperately hold on to a model that no longer is effective? Is there a balance?
The road to truth is often painful but clear and it seems to me that the answer lies in an eclectic and guided curriculum with a directed and comprehensive invoking of technology. Colleges must be nimble, holding to the ideals of what an education means but respecting employers' need for skilled employees and entrepreneurship. Obviously supply and demand will ultimately rule the day and will shape the forces of college curriculum, but meanwhile it is time for colleges and employers to recognize those areas that technology can provide and those areas where face to face learning needs to happen. Not entirely sure of the answer, I believe a reduction in broad liberal arts courses, increased choice in classes, and professional tracks toward employment are the trajectories of the colleges of the future. Thrown in the mix will be more use of technology, online courses, video, experiential learning, and interactive education.
Rather than fighting the change and insisting on the past, colleges must embrace the change if they are to survive. Schools with substantial endowments will continue the journey established by the past, but other schools must find new ways to educate students for the future. Such is the way of cultural change.
Saturday, June 06, 2015
Bach, Financials, and Running
Back in the running mode, I try to hit about 20 miles per week with Saturdays being the long run day. The recent weight gain has impacted my distance and speed, and I often find myself walking in the middle of the run. Yet, risking imperiousness, I will admit to having a resting heart rate of about 60 which is supposedly good for a 54 year old man. Running continues to be euphoric and it is hard to describe the glorious feeling of the wind on my face as I pound the pavement and breathe quickly. The sounds I hear, besides my own exertion, are generally pleasant and include birds, dogs, cars, sometimes children playing, and the wind as it blows through the trees. Sound continues to be meaningful to me and I often wish I had the power to hear the ants walk, the spiders spin their webs, the birds fly, and the clouds move. Waxing poetically, however, about the world is not my intention on this fine morning. Rather I wish to address what kind of music matches what kind of book.
When running, I often listen to audio books. I generally listen to fiction followed by non-fiction with most books lasting approximately 12 hours which gives me around 2-3 weeks per book, considering a few days here and there to listen to the sounds of world instead. Adventure fiction is great for running whereas non-fiction with facts is less propelling but more interesting than fiction. After finishing "The Girl on the Train" which I found to be a dull story in spite of its popularity, I downloaded "Financial Literacy: Finding Your Way in the Financial Markets." It is an informative read (or rather listen) and I am enjoying it. What is perplexing to me however is the opening music for the book was a Brandenburg Concerto by Johann Sebastian Bach. Not that it was not thoroughly enjoyable and "hit the spot" as I started my long Saturday run. The counterpoint, textures, joyous harmony, complexity, and aesthetic satisfaction of the music was the perfect choice for me this fine morning as I ran and learned about the financial markets.
But why Bach? In what ways does the music of Bach set up or foreshadow or represent a book on finance? Is it that people who read or in my case listen to this book are generally older, more educated, sophisticated people, or maybe old fuddy duddies? That sounds as absurd as is assuming Bach is for older academics only. Is it that the complexity of Bach including his brilliant use of contrapuntal devices to add form, tension, and structure to his music match that of a book designed to explain the complexity of the financial markets? Maybe the music was picked randomly and anything would have been fine...say a Mahler symphony or something by Philip Glass. Or perhaps the opening music could have been disco or reggae or a rap on finance? Maybe this was just a legal decision, after all Bach's music is in public domain and does not require permission or ownership to perform.
Perhaps the music should have been hard rock or Jurassic Park or maybe some opera or Johnny Cash? Is the use of Bach a sign of the revitalization of "classical music" in our culture? Or maybe its rarity in popular culture sets it apart as unique and special, signifying the special qualities of the book? Frankly, I am not sure why Bach was selected as the music to begin the audio book on finance, but I did enjoy it.
When running, I often listen to audio books. I generally listen to fiction followed by non-fiction with most books lasting approximately 12 hours which gives me around 2-3 weeks per book, considering a few days here and there to listen to the sounds of world instead. Adventure fiction is great for running whereas non-fiction with facts is less propelling but more interesting than fiction. After finishing "The Girl on the Train" which I found to be a dull story in spite of its popularity, I downloaded "Financial Literacy: Finding Your Way in the Financial Markets." It is an informative read (or rather listen) and I am enjoying it. What is perplexing to me however is the opening music for the book was a Brandenburg Concerto by Johann Sebastian Bach. Not that it was not thoroughly enjoyable and "hit the spot" as I started my long Saturday run. The counterpoint, textures, joyous harmony, complexity, and aesthetic satisfaction of the music was the perfect choice for me this fine morning as I ran and learned about the financial markets.
But why Bach? In what ways does the music of Bach set up or foreshadow or represent a book on finance? Is it that people who read or in my case listen to this book are generally older, more educated, sophisticated people, or maybe old fuddy duddies? That sounds as absurd as is assuming Bach is for older academics only. Is it that the complexity of Bach including his brilliant use of contrapuntal devices to add form, tension, and structure to his music match that of a book designed to explain the complexity of the financial markets? Maybe the music was picked randomly and anything would have been fine...say a Mahler symphony or something by Philip Glass. Or perhaps the opening music could have been disco or reggae or a rap on finance? Maybe this was just a legal decision, after all Bach's music is in public domain and does not require permission or ownership to perform.
Perhaps the music should have been hard rock or Jurassic Park or maybe some opera or Johnny Cash? Is the use of Bach a sign of the revitalization of "classical music" in our culture? Or maybe its rarity in popular culture sets it apart as unique and special, signifying the special qualities of the book? Frankly, I am not sure why Bach was selected as the music to begin the audio book on finance, but I did enjoy it.
Sunday, May 24, 2015
Yesterday is Gone and so is the Woodshed
Being an avid anti-luddite and therefore embracing new technology on every level possible, my profession, however, borders on the archaic, admittedly charming, world of an age long gone. Not that this something negative necessarily for in fact I do miss certain practices of the past. I miss having black and white television, 3 channels, no remote, physical encyclopedias on the shelves, cars with steel dashboards (that is another story and the reason I have a scar above my eye!), record players, dial phones on the wall, hymnals, coffee percolating, maps in hand, and a slide rule for calculations. I also miss being "pill-free" but that is again a separate topic!
But the world marches forward and the wind blows freely in spite of our efforts to control it. Harnessing the wind and using it positively is one thing but stopping it is another. Progress cannot be and should not be inhibited, particularly by our individual preferences for that which exists in a previous time. Not that there is anything wrong at all about preferences. After all there is no doubt that preferences shape our personal existence. A person is certainly welcome to prefer riding a horse or studying a Rubens or balancing a checkbook or taking a bath once a month (a practice from earlier centuries), but to thwart the preferences of others through active campaigns against progress is patently unfair and in fact a worthless endeavor.
I will say, however, that in a way I appreciate the Luddites of the world, people who hold on to a past practice or a perceived simpler existence. People who remain suspicious of our technologically driven world. Those are the ones who keep some of us in check and prevent us from going all in on technology. Sometimes I do appreciate someone tapping the brakes and reminding me of the very few benefits of the printed page or the inevitable "lecture" containing facts (facts that incidentally are available with a couple of clicks of a mouse). I always smile at the phrase "the good old days" when life was better without all the technology surrounding us.
Yet I read an article asking the question, do we really want to return to a time without a cell phone or unlimited television stations or computers? Do we really want to make coffee over an outdoor grill everyday? http://tmagazine.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/05/andrew-ohagan-technology/. We may have become dependent on the cell phone but, frankly, I am glad and do not wish to return to a previous time without it. Communication is instant and fun. Banking and money management are more accurate. Writing is definitely easier as is shopping. Finding places to eat or even vacation is a snap and even knowing the best roads to avoid traffic problems is amazing.
As Gus McRae says in Lonesome Dove, "yesterday's gone and you can't get it back." While you can learn from yesterday, you cannot return to it, nor would you really want to do so. It is time to be current, contemporary, vital, and progressive. Admittedly this is at times a difficult requirement. I recall teaching a student and I told her she needed to "woodshed" a passage. But as I thought through my suggestion, it occurred to me that she might not have fully understand what I said. I looked at her and asked, "Do you know what woodshed means?" She said no. I then proceeded to explain the history of the woodshed and how it has come to mean hard work or improvement. My words, however, sounded hollow and old-fashioned, even to me. How often do we use archaic language that has little to no meaning to other people? How often do we invoke yesterday to explain today?
I believe we tend to live in the past, reflecting on past mistakes, past successes, old challenges, hurts, joys, and preferences. We carry our history on our sleeve and engage it whenever we don't fully understand the present or exactly how to deal with the current situation. For many that means fighting for the "old days", whereas for others it means refusing to accept a new way. While this is not a problem necessarily by itself, it becomes troublesome when the lack of individual progress impacts the collective need to press forward.
In a way, however, I don't believe it matters in the end for time and progress will happen regardless of what we think or prefer. Entrepreneurship in action mitigates the efforts of the naysayers and those marching forward will eventually crush the efforts of those who only live for yesterday.
But the world marches forward and the wind blows freely in spite of our efforts to control it. Harnessing the wind and using it positively is one thing but stopping it is another. Progress cannot be and should not be inhibited, particularly by our individual preferences for that which exists in a previous time. Not that there is anything wrong at all about preferences. After all there is no doubt that preferences shape our personal existence. A person is certainly welcome to prefer riding a horse or studying a Rubens or balancing a checkbook or taking a bath once a month (a practice from earlier centuries), but to thwart the preferences of others through active campaigns against progress is patently unfair and in fact a worthless endeavor.
I will say, however, that in a way I appreciate the Luddites of the world, people who hold on to a past practice or a perceived simpler existence. People who remain suspicious of our technologically driven world. Those are the ones who keep some of us in check and prevent us from going all in on technology. Sometimes I do appreciate someone tapping the brakes and reminding me of the very few benefits of the printed page or the inevitable "lecture" containing facts (facts that incidentally are available with a couple of clicks of a mouse). I always smile at the phrase "the good old days" when life was better without all the technology surrounding us.
Yet I read an article asking the question, do we really want to return to a time without a cell phone or unlimited television stations or computers? Do we really want to make coffee over an outdoor grill everyday? http://tmagazine.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/05/andrew-ohagan-technology/. We may have become dependent on the cell phone but, frankly, I am glad and do not wish to return to a previous time without it. Communication is instant and fun. Banking and money management are more accurate. Writing is definitely easier as is shopping. Finding places to eat or even vacation is a snap and even knowing the best roads to avoid traffic problems is amazing.
As Gus McRae says in Lonesome Dove, "yesterday's gone and you can't get it back." While you can learn from yesterday, you cannot return to it, nor would you really want to do so. It is time to be current, contemporary, vital, and progressive. Admittedly this is at times a difficult requirement. I recall teaching a student and I told her she needed to "woodshed" a passage. But as I thought through my suggestion, it occurred to me that she might not have fully understand what I said. I looked at her and asked, "Do you know what woodshed means?" She said no. I then proceeded to explain the history of the woodshed and how it has come to mean hard work or improvement. My words, however, sounded hollow and old-fashioned, even to me. How often do we use archaic language that has little to no meaning to other people? How often do we invoke yesterday to explain today?
I believe we tend to live in the past, reflecting on past mistakes, past successes, old challenges, hurts, joys, and preferences. We carry our history on our sleeve and engage it whenever we don't fully understand the present or exactly how to deal with the current situation. For many that means fighting for the "old days", whereas for others it means refusing to accept a new way. While this is not a problem necessarily by itself, it becomes troublesome when the lack of individual progress impacts the collective need to press forward.
In a way, however, I don't believe it matters in the end for time and progress will happen regardless of what we think or prefer. Entrepreneurship in action mitigates the efforts of the naysayers and those marching forward will eventually crush the efforts of those who only live for yesterday.
Wednesday, May 20, 2015
Administrative Yips
A consequence of the current cultural clash in higher education and the arts is the dreaded disease known as the administrative yips. In sports an athlete who develops the yips loses some physiological skill that is necessary for success. This could be a baseball player who loses the ability to follow through on a throw or to move to his right or make a level swing. In bowling it could be someone who suddenly cannot take the proper number of steps. When a player gets the yips, he or she can no longer function the same way and either must conquer the weakness, find another way, or do something different outside of the discipline. Often the yips occur in sports following an injury or a mistake on the field as well as having to face an formidable enemy of some kind or other.
Administrative yips manifest in a lack of confidence in making sound decisions. In the current climate of concern over economics, quantity, quality, technology, personnel, progress, integrity, legalities, privacy, classicism, modernism, and the unending responsibility to lead positively, it is no wonder that administrators often lose confidence and wonder which way to turn. All it takes are two concurrent decisions that made a negative impact and suddenly the yips set in and the next decision feels uncertain. This is followed by insecurity, doubt, and a kind of fear of the unknown, leading to depression, confusion, and finally administrative impotence. Administrators floundering in a quagmire of doubt may give up or emphasize that which does not matter, giving themselves authority over trivial, inconsequential concerns that in analysis are banal without substance.
I recall at a previous position being concerned over the lack of students' ability to articulate a musical thought or idea. Yet I was also keenly aware of how requiring all graduating seniors to present a public speech on a musical topic for all the faculty was difficult for scheduling and for convenience of faculty at an involved time of year. I further hoped for a way to document and assess the content and delivery of the 5 minute speech. After thinking through these issues, I had the brilliant idea for students to prepare their speech and deliver it to a video that would then be distributed to all the faculty. The faculty would then watch the video at their own convenience and assign an objective grade. We then had a record of the speech, faculty had time to assess it, and students did not feel the pressure of delivery at a public event. It all made sense but was a dismal flop. Faculty did not watch it, students did a poor job, and nobody had respect for the process. Why?
One problem was that I did not get faculty buy-in for the process. Another problem was that the faculty did not live in a digital world and preferred face-to-face live teaching. My efforts to help their own schedule did not resonate with them because they did not believe in the value of the process nor in the system. To their way of thinking, if something is worth doing, it must be worth doing face to face in real time. But this little situation that happened many years ago, gave me the administrative yips. After all, if you feed a dog and he bites you, you may not be as anxious to feed him again!
Now many years later, I am suffering again from the yips due to the complexity of the semester, the frequent questioning of my decisions, and the many things out of my control. Like Steve Sax who could no longer throw the ball to first base (he did overcome the problem eventually), I cannot seem to make my decisions reach the goal. Maybe it is a slump of some kind or maybe just a bump in the road, but it feels like the yips. Objectively I do know that most administrators suffer from the yips occasionally and I also know that not all decisions will be the right ones, but emotionally I do not like to lose. And maybe, just maybe, that is the crux of the yips...pride and bruised ego.
I suppose admitting there is a problem is the first step toward a cure and I have taken that first step. Now for the next step...seek Godly wisdom, be decisive, trust my instincts, and move forward positively. A few more days of the yips and I am ready to get in the game again! Here is a question for anyone reading. Have you ever had the yips?
Administrative yips manifest in a lack of confidence in making sound decisions. In the current climate of concern over economics, quantity, quality, technology, personnel, progress, integrity, legalities, privacy, classicism, modernism, and the unending responsibility to lead positively, it is no wonder that administrators often lose confidence and wonder which way to turn. All it takes are two concurrent decisions that made a negative impact and suddenly the yips set in and the next decision feels uncertain. This is followed by insecurity, doubt, and a kind of fear of the unknown, leading to depression, confusion, and finally administrative impotence. Administrators floundering in a quagmire of doubt may give up or emphasize that which does not matter, giving themselves authority over trivial, inconsequential concerns that in analysis are banal without substance.
I recall at a previous position being concerned over the lack of students' ability to articulate a musical thought or idea. Yet I was also keenly aware of how requiring all graduating seniors to present a public speech on a musical topic for all the faculty was difficult for scheduling and for convenience of faculty at an involved time of year. I further hoped for a way to document and assess the content and delivery of the 5 minute speech. After thinking through these issues, I had the brilliant idea for students to prepare their speech and deliver it to a video that would then be distributed to all the faculty. The faculty would then watch the video at their own convenience and assign an objective grade. We then had a record of the speech, faculty had time to assess it, and students did not feel the pressure of delivery at a public event. It all made sense but was a dismal flop. Faculty did not watch it, students did a poor job, and nobody had respect for the process. Why?
One problem was that I did not get faculty buy-in for the process. Another problem was that the faculty did not live in a digital world and preferred face-to-face live teaching. My efforts to help their own schedule did not resonate with them because they did not believe in the value of the process nor in the system. To their way of thinking, if something is worth doing, it must be worth doing face to face in real time. But this little situation that happened many years ago, gave me the administrative yips. After all, if you feed a dog and he bites you, you may not be as anxious to feed him again!
Now many years later, I am suffering again from the yips due to the complexity of the semester, the frequent questioning of my decisions, and the many things out of my control. Like Steve Sax who could no longer throw the ball to first base (he did overcome the problem eventually), I cannot seem to make my decisions reach the goal. Maybe it is a slump of some kind or maybe just a bump in the road, but it feels like the yips. Objectively I do know that most administrators suffer from the yips occasionally and I also know that not all decisions will be the right ones, but emotionally I do not like to lose. And maybe, just maybe, that is the crux of the yips...pride and bruised ego.
I suppose admitting there is a problem is the first step toward a cure and I have taken that first step. Now for the next step...seek Godly wisdom, be decisive, trust my instincts, and move forward positively. A few more days of the yips and I am ready to get in the game again! Here is a question for anyone reading. Have you ever had the yips?
Sunday, May 10, 2015
Packages, Music, and Men
Received a package from Amazon yesterday and after opening the box, realized I had more to open. Being a big fan of Amazon and championing their system at every opportunity, I was excited to read the words "frustration-free packaging." My frustration over the packaging we deal with in our society is often at a high point as I open paper towels, socks, medicine bottles, a new shirt, yogurt, and virtually everything one purchases at a store. Particularly with a thumb that no longer functions as well, opening anything is a significant challenge usually requiring a careful use of scissors so as not to damage the product. The time wasted opening items must equal at least a month over a lifetime!
But much to my excitement, the package claimed it was "frustration-free packaging." Diving in with a smile on my face and joy in my countenance, I began opening the package. I'll give them this, it did not require scissors and it was much less frustrating than packages one gets at Walmart or Dillards. But it was not frustration free and I once again felt the pain of cardboard as I push and pulled to get the items out. I suppose, however, that true frustration-free packaging to me would mean someone walked up to me and handed me the item which I would then begin using without any preparation. I guess I will accept the idea of "less frustration" in the packaging of Amazon products. After all, it is still a terrific company.
Studying the life of Stevie Wonder and thinking through musicians from the past and present, I am a little concerned about two trends in music training. One is that fewer students are taking piano lessons for any extended time and two is that fewer boys seem to be involved in music apart from playing in band, and then sometimes for only a short time. I have no empirical evidence to support this claim and would like to be proven wrong, but it does seem to be true by all appearances. When did music become a "feminine" activity? Is this true for all the arts? Males do sports and girls do arts? This makes no sense to me and makes me wonder if our "football" based culture is somehow contributing to this absurd stereo-type. Yet, even as I type, I have to believe it is a temporary cultural change that will not be sustained. Art belongs to everyone, male and female, just as sports also belongs to the masses.
Meanwhile to all those artists out there, whether that be in visual art, music, or theatre, I urge you to continue your journey. There is a place for you in the world but be mindful of shifting attitudes toward the arts. They are valued but maybe not in the same way they once were. The wise and nimble artist stays current with trends while seeking after integrity in all things. Mostly, let's move away from any kind of notion that the arts are a "feminine" endeavor. What an absurd idea.
But much to my excitement, the package claimed it was "frustration-free packaging." Diving in with a smile on my face and joy in my countenance, I began opening the package. I'll give them this, it did not require scissors and it was much less frustrating than packages one gets at Walmart or Dillards. But it was not frustration free and I once again felt the pain of cardboard as I push and pulled to get the items out. I suppose, however, that true frustration-free packaging to me would mean someone walked up to me and handed me the item which I would then begin using without any preparation. I guess I will accept the idea of "less frustration" in the packaging of Amazon products. After all, it is still a terrific company.
Studying the life of Stevie Wonder and thinking through musicians from the past and present, I am a little concerned about two trends in music training. One is that fewer students are taking piano lessons for any extended time and two is that fewer boys seem to be involved in music apart from playing in band, and then sometimes for only a short time. I have no empirical evidence to support this claim and would like to be proven wrong, but it does seem to be true by all appearances. When did music become a "feminine" activity? Is this true for all the arts? Males do sports and girls do arts? This makes no sense to me and makes me wonder if our "football" based culture is somehow contributing to this absurd stereo-type. Yet, even as I type, I have to believe it is a temporary cultural change that will not be sustained. Art belongs to everyone, male and female, just as sports also belongs to the masses.
Meanwhile to all those artists out there, whether that be in visual art, music, or theatre, I urge you to continue your journey. There is a place for you in the world but be mindful of shifting attitudes toward the arts. They are valued but maybe not in the same way they once were. The wise and nimble artist stays current with trends while seeking after integrity in all things. Mostly, let's move away from any kind of notion that the arts are a "feminine" endeavor. What an absurd idea.
City vs. Country
Having lived for 12 years in the country on 13 acres but now living in the city surrounded by houses on either side, I can find merits for both. In favor of city living: mail service and trash service. We can now walk down a short footpath to our nice mailbox and pickup the mail each day. This beats having to go into town to the post office and retrieve the weeks mail from the box. Regarding trash service, it certainly became a chore to haul the trash to the landfill or to once a week roll the large green receptacle down the long driveway to the street. We now have a very short trip from the house to the street where it is picked up twice a week. Tax dollars working for the residents! But, wait, tax dollars...yikes. We are paying nearly three times as much for taxes as we ever did in the country.
We can now get to the stores, the restaurants, the mall, the theatre and work in short order without much preparation and without undue and complicated scheduling. When we want to see friends or have a social outing, a call or two and we are together enjoying a meal, a concert, or a movie. Great fun and certainly "modern" in our progressive society. Church is close, parks are near, the airport is 5 minutes away, museums, galleries, and there is no denying the value of having a doctor and hospital nearby. All these and more make city life the preferred residential choice.
In the country we had skunks, snakes, raccoons, rodents, wild cats, wild dogs, coyotes, drought, dust, scorpions, wasps, and the ever present fear of wildfires. I kept a gun and knife handy and never stopped trying to get rid of cactus and mesquites that constantly threatened to take over what little grass struggled to live in our front and back yards.
So why in the world do I miss country living? The space, the sky, the quiet, the solitude, the rugged individualism, the removal from society, all these and more contribute to my slight discontent with city living. Living in the country, I never felt the desire to get away or take a vacation, but in the city, the idea of going somewhere else is compelling. Home, of course, is where the heart finds joy, but in the city, your home is a stone's toss to your neighbor's home. In the country, feel free to throw a stone far away, there are no neighbors who can see nor care. In the city, the neighbors may not know you but they are curious and are constantly watching your yard for a hint of neglect or some kind of nefarious activity.
Yes, I miss the solitude and the space. Conveniences aside, the magic and charm of the country is still in me, and while I love my home, perhaps one day I'll live in a place that contains the best of both worlds...a home in the country with the city nearby.
We can now get to the stores, the restaurants, the mall, the theatre and work in short order without much preparation and without undue and complicated scheduling. When we want to see friends or have a social outing, a call or two and we are together enjoying a meal, a concert, or a movie. Great fun and certainly "modern" in our progressive society. Church is close, parks are near, the airport is 5 minutes away, museums, galleries, and there is no denying the value of having a doctor and hospital nearby. All these and more make city life the preferred residential choice.
In the country we had skunks, snakes, raccoons, rodents, wild cats, wild dogs, coyotes, drought, dust, scorpions, wasps, and the ever present fear of wildfires. I kept a gun and knife handy and never stopped trying to get rid of cactus and mesquites that constantly threatened to take over what little grass struggled to live in our front and back yards.
So why in the world do I miss country living? The space, the sky, the quiet, the solitude, the rugged individualism, the removal from society, all these and more contribute to my slight discontent with city living. Living in the country, I never felt the desire to get away or take a vacation, but in the city, the idea of going somewhere else is compelling. Home, of course, is where the heart finds joy, but in the city, your home is a stone's toss to your neighbor's home. In the country, feel free to throw a stone far away, there are no neighbors who can see nor care. In the city, the neighbors may not know you but they are curious and are constantly watching your yard for a hint of neglect or some kind of nefarious activity.
Yes, I miss the solitude and the space. Conveniences aside, the magic and charm of the country is still in me, and while I love my home, perhaps one day I'll live in a place that contains the best of both worlds...a home in the country with the city nearby.
Thursday, February 19, 2015
How to Build a Gas Station
A student once asked a college professor why music curriculum was steeped in the classics when music application upon graduation was mostly contemporary or popular oriented. The context of the question was related to churches but can be extended to the music industry. The professor gave an indirect example that served as both his philosophy and a justification of the curriculum. He said something to the effect that an architect studies the finest in architecture rather than how to build a gas station. He went on to posture that if an architect can build a cathedral or a museum or a mansion, then he can certainly build a gas station.
Aside from several weaknesses that occur when analogies are analyzed to specific detail, the attitude is likewise disdainful. The idea of exclusion and qualitative generalizations based on random subjectivity makes me uncomfortable, and I cannot entirely join my colleagues in criticizing the gas station and lifting up the highly regarded architectural design of a cathedral. I am so thankful for the cathedral but will admit to using the gas station much more frequently. Does this in and of itself make the gas station a lesser structure and partly due to infrequent usage, the cathedral greater? As a design becomes more utilitarian does it likewise become less artistic and therefore less worthy?
This does not mean that I equate all buildings as equal nor do I spend effort in studying the design of a gas station over that of a cathedral. It does mean, however, that I can respect the cathedral with its arches, domes, windows, etchings, furnishings, crosses, rooms, and purpose while also respecting the gas station with its underground holdings, pumps, rooms, garage, over-hangings, and store. Both structures require planning, design, a vision, implementation, coordinated efforts, tenacity, artistry, and funding. One is not "better" than the other but each is used for different purposes. If studied for artistic elements to include line, creativity, imagination, beauty, and form, one would readily conclude the cathedral to be superior. Yet if one were to study the structures for usefulness and purpose (spiritual elements aside), one might suggest the gas station to be superior to the cathedral in terms of practicality, footprint, functionality, perhaps even form.
We tend to judge art based on our own interests and concepts (thank you Emmanuel Kant!) and tend to rely on so-called experts in the field to tell us what to appreciate and what to reject. But I submit that each work should be considered on its own merits rather than quantitatively ranking it by subjective criteria for qualitative purposes. In doing so we may find value in the simple, treasures within the commonplace, joys in the concise, and deep expression in the mundane. Applying this process does not mitigate the idea of excellence but it does give acknowledgement and affirmation to human creative efforts. It also does not minimize the role of artistic preference but, instead, allows for multiplicity and pluralization of cognition. Rather than saying "that is quality" or that is "not quality," we are able to evaluate art on its own merits.
Having circumnavigated the issue at hand, let us return to the basic question. Should academia only teach the finest examples at the exclusion of the lesser ones? Or should we attempt to demonstrate the differences, providing tools for application of all kinds of art whether that be visually, musically, or theatrically? I believe it is time to embrace the totality of the arts world and provide education and training that encourages and supports both the gas station and the cathedral. How do you build a gas station? With materials, planning, and hard work!
Aside from several weaknesses that occur when analogies are analyzed to specific detail, the attitude is likewise disdainful. The idea of exclusion and qualitative generalizations based on random subjectivity makes me uncomfortable, and I cannot entirely join my colleagues in criticizing the gas station and lifting up the highly regarded architectural design of a cathedral. I am so thankful for the cathedral but will admit to using the gas station much more frequently. Does this in and of itself make the gas station a lesser structure and partly due to infrequent usage, the cathedral greater? As a design becomes more utilitarian does it likewise become less artistic and therefore less worthy?
This does not mean that I equate all buildings as equal nor do I spend effort in studying the design of a gas station over that of a cathedral. It does mean, however, that I can respect the cathedral with its arches, domes, windows, etchings, furnishings, crosses, rooms, and purpose while also respecting the gas station with its underground holdings, pumps, rooms, garage, over-hangings, and store. Both structures require planning, design, a vision, implementation, coordinated efforts, tenacity, artistry, and funding. One is not "better" than the other but each is used for different purposes. If studied for artistic elements to include line, creativity, imagination, beauty, and form, one would readily conclude the cathedral to be superior. Yet if one were to study the structures for usefulness and purpose (spiritual elements aside), one might suggest the gas station to be superior to the cathedral in terms of practicality, footprint, functionality, perhaps even form.
We tend to judge art based on our own interests and concepts (thank you Emmanuel Kant!) and tend to rely on so-called experts in the field to tell us what to appreciate and what to reject. But I submit that each work should be considered on its own merits rather than quantitatively ranking it by subjective criteria for qualitative purposes. In doing so we may find value in the simple, treasures within the commonplace, joys in the concise, and deep expression in the mundane. Applying this process does not mitigate the idea of excellence but it does give acknowledgement and affirmation to human creative efforts. It also does not minimize the role of artistic preference but, instead, allows for multiplicity and pluralization of cognition. Rather than saying "that is quality" or that is "not quality," we are able to evaluate art on its own merits.
Having circumnavigated the issue at hand, let us return to the basic question. Should academia only teach the finest examples at the exclusion of the lesser ones? Or should we attempt to demonstrate the differences, providing tools for application of all kinds of art whether that be visually, musically, or theatrically? I believe it is time to embrace the totality of the arts world and provide education and training that encourages and supports both the gas station and the cathedral. How do you build a gas station? With materials, planning, and hard work!
Monday, February 09, 2015
Symphony by Great Composer
Glorious and stunning are inadequate to describe the performance by the orchestra. Expressive beyond words and wildly cathartic, the performance hit on all cylinders and gave the audience a musical journey that was sublime and richly satisfying on all levels. The conductor and the players were perfectly in sync with each other and every dynamic change was felt collectively by the players and subsequently by the audience. The phrases connected to the whole and the orchestra seemed to grow as a unit with each measure ultimately creating an outstanding musical mosaic of joy and emotional bliss.
The 800 or so people present responded to the concert with a standing ovation and an extended applause. The talk on the way out was about the quality of the orchestra and how fortunate to have orchestra of such exceptional ability in the community. All was positive for almost everyone.
What could possibly be negative? After all, it was an incredible experience for the listeners, the players and the audience. The negative is in the $20,000 deficit that resulted from expenses being substantially greater than the revenues. Another way to express this is that the concert cost more in personnel costs than tickets sales generated. Not enough people came to the concert to offset the expenses. In most industries such a loss would cause restructuring, panic, layoffs, changes, talk of bankruptcy, or at the very least reductions in expenditures.
Many questions remain in this situation such as how could something so amazing cause such significant losses or how do fix this problem? Was it an anomaly? Did management simply spend too much? Or perhaps the problem was in marketing and publicity? Maybe had people been made aware of the remarkable musical and emotional experience they would have, they would have been more inclined to buy tickets and attend the concert. Perhaps an aggressive marketing blitz to include social media, newspapers, television, billboards, emails, flyers, mailouts, and posters would have encouraged support, demonstrating the excellence of the orchestra and "selling" people on the benefits of attending would have worked.
Or maybe it was one of those poorly selected nights where there were too many other events interfering with the orchestra concert, resulting in many disappointed people who were unable to attend due to a prior engagement. Yet somehow none of this rings true. The truth shines full in the light of the economics where the revenues are less than the expenses. For the orchestra to live on playing great music, it must find a way to increase revenues and/or decrease expenses. It is not a marketing problem, although that may be a small part of the solution. It is not a matter of choosing music by better composers nor improving the quality of the organization.
It is a matter of trying new approaches, new music, eclecticism, reaching a wider audience, using media, drums, guitars, entertainment, variety, all while reducing personnel costs and unnecessary expenditures It is a matter of excellence, integrity, and courage to explore. It is a matter of audiences encouraging and accepting new sounds and being patient to allow the occasional strikeout or unsuccessful concert. And yes it is also a matter of improved marketing, of better scheduling, of letting go of tradition, of making concerts fun, meaningful, convenient, friendly, profound, participatory, interactive, current, and mostly profitable, This then returns to the fundamental question, can or should great art be profitable? The answer is that it better be.
The 800 or so people present responded to the concert with a standing ovation and an extended applause. The talk on the way out was about the quality of the orchestra and how fortunate to have orchestra of such exceptional ability in the community. All was positive for almost everyone.
What could possibly be negative? After all, it was an incredible experience for the listeners, the players and the audience. The negative is in the $20,000 deficit that resulted from expenses being substantially greater than the revenues. Another way to express this is that the concert cost more in personnel costs than tickets sales generated. Not enough people came to the concert to offset the expenses. In most industries such a loss would cause restructuring, panic, layoffs, changes, talk of bankruptcy, or at the very least reductions in expenditures.
Many questions remain in this situation such as how could something so amazing cause such significant losses or how do fix this problem? Was it an anomaly? Did management simply spend too much? Or perhaps the problem was in marketing and publicity? Maybe had people been made aware of the remarkable musical and emotional experience they would have, they would have been more inclined to buy tickets and attend the concert. Perhaps an aggressive marketing blitz to include social media, newspapers, television, billboards, emails, flyers, mailouts, and posters would have encouraged support, demonstrating the excellence of the orchestra and "selling" people on the benefits of attending would have worked.
Or maybe it was one of those poorly selected nights where there were too many other events interfering with the orchestra concert, resulting in many disappointed people who were unable to attend due to a prior engagement. Yet somehow none of this rings true. The truth shines full in the light of the economics where the revenues are less than the expenses. For the orchestra to live on playing great music, it must find a way to increase revenues and/or decrease expenses. It is not a marketing problem, although that may be a small part of the solution. It is not a matter of choosing music by better composers nor improving the quality of the organization.
It is a matter of trying new approaches, new music, eclecticism, reaching a wider audience, using media, drums, guitars, entertainment, variety, all while reducing personnel costs and unnecessary expenditures It is a matter of excellence, integrity, and courage to explore. It is a matter of audiences encouraging and accepting new sounds and being patient to allow the occasional strikeout or unsuccessful concert. And yes it is also a matter of improved marketing, of better scheduling, of letting go of tradition, of making concerts fun, meaningful, convenient, friendly, profound, participatory, interactive, current, and mostly profitable, This then returns to the fundamental question, can or should great art be profitable? The answer is that it better be.
Thursday, February 05, 2015
Minor or Major?
No, I am not referencing the sounds of chords although maybe there is some sort of psychological association somewhere in the comparison. I am referencing today's surgery on my thumb. Last summer when picking up a table, it slipped a little and landed on the soft part at the bottom of my left thumb. Feeling something different, I decided not to worry about it and go on. The next few days I was a little sore but nothing serious. Time, however, dealt a different blow as arthritis set in to the thumb due to the previous trauma. Eventually the cartilage quit doing its job to keep the bones in the joint from rubbing on the bones. Now many months later it is time for surgery.
The doctor mentioned it was a minor surgery but did say that to a patient it feels major. Not sure what I think about whether it is minor or major but I do know it is involved. After watching a youtube video explaining how the surgery works, I do feel more informed and somewhat fascinated with the process. First the trapezium bones are removed, followed by a hole being drilled in the thumb. Next an incision is made in the wrist to allow the removal of a tendon. The tendon is then moved to the hole in the thumb where it threads through and around the bone. The leftover tendon is then rolled into a tight pack where it is placed in the joint to prevent the bones from being on the bones.
It all sounds easy and will take about an hour followed by 6-8 weeks of recovery in a cast of some sort. The added problem of my thick blood which requires constant thinning with medication is of concern due to the need for proper coagulation. This means I take shots in the stomach for 5 days prior to surgery and 5 days afterward. The only real danger is the day of surgery where I have no blood thinners in me for several hours. But there is no other choice and I just have to hope for the best.
In a couple of months the thumb should feel fine and I will be back to normal (whatever that means!). Returning to the question, is this minor or major? I think it is exactly what the surgeon told me, minor to him and major to me!
The doctor mentioned it was a minor surgery but did say that to a patient it feels major. Not sure what I think about whether it is minor or major but I do know it is involved. After watching a youtube video explaining how the surgery works, I do feel more informed and somewhat fascinated with the process. First the trapezium bones are removed, followed by a hole being drilled in the thumb. Next an incision is made in the wrist to allow the removal of a tendon. The tendon is then moved to the hole in the thumb where it threads through and around the bone. The leftover tendon is then rolled into a tight pack where it is placed in the joint to prevent the bones from being on the bones.
It all sounds easy and will take about an hour followed by 6-8 weeks of recovery in a cast of some sort. The added problem of my thick blood which requires constant thinning with medication is of concern due to the need for proper coagulation. This means I take shots in the stomach for 5 days prior to surgery and 5 days afterward. The only real danger is the day of surgery where I have no blood thinners in me for several hours. But there is no other choice and I just have to hope for the best.
In a couple of months the thumb should feel fine and I will be back to normal (whatever that means!). Returning to the question, is this minor or major? I think it is exactly what the surgeon told me, minor to him and major to me!
Wednesday, January 21, 2015
Improvisation as an Art Form
Following a well-performed recital by an outstanding tenor, I overheard the accompanist mention that she enjoys playing for tenors because they never sing the music exactly as it was prepared. She elaborated by saying she has to remain vigilant in listening and adjusting. I suppose a musical purist devoid of a sense of creativity, spontaneity, or originality might quibble with such veiled affirmation, reminding performers to express the exact intentions of the composer and the time period in which the composition originated. Yet such criticisms many times lack validity and thorough knowledge of both the context and the composer's intent.
True that taken to its logical conclusion, improvisation becomes freedom without restraint, expression without boundaries, and random events apart from governance. Yet looking at the other extreme, music without any kind of improvisatory elements, some kind of absolute adherence to the printed page devoid of personality or personal interpretation subjugates music's emotional benefits both to the performer as well as the listener. Somewhere in the middle of these two extremes lies the concept and benefits of improvisation. On the improvisation spectrum, there are the free style melodies of Charlie Parker, the classy jazz melodies of Clark Terry, the unusually complicated piano sounds of Keith Jarrett, and the splashy experiments of blues artist Thelonius Monk. These are but a drop in the jazz bucket of great jazz improvisers from the past. Today the number of highly respected jazz improvisers is extended across the globe and includes young and old, trained and untrained. But improvisation is not limited to jazz or jazz artists but rather encompasses a long heritage of great performers from all genres of music.
Improvisation has been a valued component of music making since the dawn of humans and the ability to alter, to adapt sound to the particular situation is nearly as natural as sound itself. As music developed in compositional complexity, paralleling that of advanced performance ability, so also did improvisational skills improve. By the time we hit the Romantic period of music in the early 19th century, improvisation was the expectation of soloists as they played with orchestras or in solo concerts. Admittedly, excessive improvisation robbed the composer of his/her intent, yet judicious improvisation was part of the normal training and performance practice of the musicians.
How much is too much or how little is not enough is part of the confusion regarding improvisation along with the need to match the style and framework of the particular piece of music. Artistic license is certainly a valid idea but so is keeping with the unified congruency of the music formed by the composer. This tension was inevitably solved as classically trained musicians adhered to the printed page and avoided any kind of improvisatory elements. The jazz world, however, did not experience such boundaries and foraged into the vast world of musical freedom and expression. Thus did the term improvisation come to be associated with jazz.
In academia we have a rigorous prescription for performance success that includes a cognitive and musical understanding of the context of a piece as well as how to achieve excellence in performance. The comprehensive approach to the education of a musician layers the learning of music theory, music history, applied music, ensembles, and other supportive courses. This approach is well-established and has produced a wealth of outstanding musicians performing throughout the world. But often as people mature and grow through education so also does their creativity tend to decline. This is a common malady which is not necessarily a malady at all but is the normal result of working diligently to master a particular skill.
Music, however, is a subjective art form requiring personal expression on top of great skill. To take music to another level requires a personal combination of adherence to the printed page, depth of personal expression, and a degree of creativity and improvisation. As we continue to develop young musicians of the future, let us not forget that improvisation is an art form, well-deserving of its place in the curriculum, and a skill needed in the future. Difficult for many, natural for others, improvisation can be learned and applied to all music in various forms. Returning to our tenor, kuddos to him for using his gifts and for expressing music in different ways in each performance. It could be what sets apart great performers from good ones.
True that taken to its logical conclusion, improvisation becomes freedom without restraint, expression without boundaries, and random events apart from governance. Yet looking at the other extreme, music without any kind of improvisatory elements, some kind of absolute adherence to the printed page devoid of personality or personal interpretation subjugates music's emotional benefits both to the performer as well as the listener. Somewhere in the middle of these two extremes lies the concept and benefits of improvisation. On the improvisation spectrum, there are the free style melodies of Charlie Parker, the classy jazz melodies of Clark Terry, the unusually complicated piano sounds of Keith Jarrett, and the splashy experiments of blues artist Thelonius Monk. These are but a drop in the jazz bucket of great jazz improvisers from the past. Today the number of highly respected jazz improvisers is extended across the globe and includes young and old, trained and untrained. But improvisation is not limited to jazz or jazz artists but rather encompasses a long heritage of great performers from all genres of music.
Improvisation has been a valued component of music making since the dawn of humans and the ability to alter, to adapt sound to the particular situation is nearly as natural as sound itself. As music developed in compositional complexity, paralleling that of advanced performance ability, so also did improvisational skills improve. By the time we hit the Romantic period of music in the early 19th century, improvisation was the expectation of soloists as they played with orchestras or in solo concerts. Admittedly, excessive improvisation robbed the composer of his/her intent, yet judicious improvisation was part of the normal training and performance practice of the musicians.
How much is too much or how little is not enough is part of the confusion regarding improvisation along with the need to match the style and framework of the particular piece of music. Artistic license is certainly a valid idea but so is keeping with the unified congruency of the music formed by the composer. This tension was inevitably solved as classically trained musicians adhered to the printed page and avoided any kind of improvisatory elements. The jazz world, however, did not experience such boundaries and foraged into the vast world of musical freedom and expression. Thus did the term improvisation come to be associated with jazz.
In academia we have a rigorous prescription for performance success that includes a cognitive and musical understanding of the context of a piece as well as how to achieve excellence in performance. The comprehensive approach to the education of a musician layers the learning of music theory, music history, applied music, ensembles, and other supportive courses. This approach is well-established and has produced a wealth of outstanding musicians performing throughout the world. But often as people mature and grow through education so also does their creativity tend to decline. This is a common malady which is not necessarily a malady at all but is the normal result of working diligently to master a particular skill.
Music, however, is a subjective art form requiring personal expression on top of great skill. To take music to another level requires a personal combination of adherence to the printed page, depth of personal expression, and a degree of creativity and improvisation. As we continue to develop young musicians of the future, let us not forget that improvisation is an art form, well-deserving of its place in the curriculum, and a skill needed in the future. Difficult for many, natural for others, improvisation can be learned and applied to all music in various forms. Returning to our tenor, kuddos to him for using his gifts and for expressing music in different ways in each performance. It could be what sets apart great performers from good ones.
Friday, January 16, 2015
Drums in our Concert and Church Worlds
Once again the subject of a trap set in church and in formal concerts was mentioned to me with disparagement. When I was younger and caught up in the formal, elite world of the arts, I was in full agreement that a trap set had no place in church nor in any kind of "classical" arts-oriented event. Associating a trap set with popular and rock music, I believed in the compartmentalization of musical styles and quickly put a trap set in with the less educated or popular world. It was the same world I placed professional wrestling, cartoons, comic books, and laser art.
My maturity, however, in this area, rather than pointing me toward sophistication has actually sent me into other thought processes where I began to ask the questions of why and how and the ultimate unnecessary polarization of the art forms. Why reject one thing while accepting another? Is it due to preference or is there another reason? For several years I decided that the arts were simply shaped by one's own preference for a certain style. That is still true to an extent but I no longer believe it is that simple. One person enjoys Country/Western, another rock, another hip-hop, another classical, and the list of genres continues. But this does not answer the problem of using drums and a trap set in a concert setting or in church.
When we study history of cultures, we find that drumming is a natural expression of rhythm and music. The Bible often talks about drums and we find references to drums in military actions, entertainment, theatre, and for particular rituals. Drums were and still are used in communication and for emotional expression through music and into every day life. As I walk through a crowded room or sit in a meeting or attend most events, it is common to hear subtle drumming of feet, hands, pens, or the arrhythmia of typing on a computer. Careful listening even reveals the steady sounds of texting on a cell phone! Drumming is all around us and is a normal part of our culture and our daily living. But why do the drums continue to polarize our audiences, our churches, and even our educational curriculum?
I believe it comes back to two reasons: 1) Concert halls and churches were traditionally designed for natural acoustic performance without drums, and 2) Drums became associated with Black music at first and now with popular music. There is a general prejudice, or perhaps bias is a better term, among academic musicians for natural acoustics and for natural performance over sound amplification. Trained vocalists, for example, resist the need for microphones and would much prefer to perform without sound enhancement in a great hall designed for natural acoustics. Academic musicians often quickly become uncomfortable when a microphone is placed in front of them.Their many years in a practice room perfecting their skills and working hard to merge musical details with great expression can be destroyed with a bad microphone, a poor room, or a poor sound technician. Drum usage in a concert hall with voices or other instruments generally requires microphones for soloists. Putting a trap set in St. Paul's Cathedral, for example, almost seems a desecration of that beautiful space.
When Rock music began to influence society, it was an outgrowth of what the Black community had been doing for years. Elvis Presley among others used drums in his songs, danced, and sang in a freer style than previously performed by White musicians. It set the world on its heels and inadvertently helped with race integration in our country. But in the middle of this transformation, we still have the drums, or in this case, the drum set. The drum set became associated not necessarily with Black music but certainly with Rock and Popular music, a concept unacceptable in concert or church settings. Many of those in academia and in churches quickly relegated the drum set to its role in commercial music for the recording studio or for those events where sound amplification was required either for instruments or voices.
The market place, however, began to prevail and demand for the "new" sound (which was not really new at all) in concert halls and churches began to infringe on the attitude of resistance. Unfortunately instead of the concepts merging into a unified musical world for both concerts and church services, many remained strongly resistant and ran the other direction. We continue to have these battles although they seem almost passe' and predictable at times. Certainly such disagreements are valid, but in the end the people supporting trap set usage in concerts and churches are ultimately victorious due to public acclaim. In other words, with exceptions, people like the drums and are comfortable with trap sets in churches and in formal concerts. The division is no longer necessary and those holding onto an old ideal may end up in the catacombs of a heritage gone by such as the telegraph or the drive-in theatre.
Yet I will admit to respecting opinion or preference on this issue. A good friend once told me that he recognizes that using a trap set in a worship service is Biblical and seems to be a strong draw for growth and ministry, but he still does not like it. I appreciate his view which is based on personal taste and preference. What I disagree with are those who reject drum usage based on some sort of arbitrary code of excellence that has no historical or objective merit. The trap set is here to stay and to deny its role in the church and in the concert hall further drives a wedge between academia and the market place. To take it another step further and provide a distant internuncial, if the drums at one time were associated with African-American music, then as we integrate the races and the cultures in our country and work to refine our society with broad acceptance, then that inevitably ought to include an acceptance of all musical styles and instruments in both churches and concert halls. Obviously this is a tall order and a noble but difficult long-term result of musical inclusion.
My maturity, however, in this area, rather than pointing me toward sophistication has actually sent me into other thought processes where I began to ask the questions of why and how and the ultimate unnecessary polarization of the art forms. Why reject one thing while accepting another? Is it due to preference or is there another reason? For several years I decided that the arts were simply shaped by one's own preference for a certain style. That is still true to an extent but I no longer believe it is that simple. One person enjoys Country/Western, another rock, another hip-hop, another classical, and the list of genres continues. But this does not answer the problem of using drums and a trap set in a concert setting or in church.
When we study history of cultures, we find that drumming is a natural expression of rhythm and music. The Bible often talks about drums and we find references to drums in military actions, entertainment, theatre, and for particular rituals. Drums were and still are used in communication and for emotional expression through music and into every day life. As I walk through a crowded room or sit in a meeting or attend most events, it is common to hear subtle drumming of feet, hands, pens, or the arrhythmia of typing on a computer. Careful listening even reveals the steady sounds of texting on a cell phone! Drumming is all around us and is a normal part of our culture and our daily living. But why do the drums continue to polarize our audiences, our churches, and even our educational curriculum?
I believe it comes back to two reasons: 1) Concert halls and churches were traditionally designed for natural acoustic performance without drums, and 2) Drums became associated with Black music at first and now with popular music. There is a general prejudice, or perhaps bias is a better term, among academic musicians for natural acoustics and for natural performance over sound amplification. Trained vocalists, for example, resist the need for microphones and would much prefer to perform without sound enhancement in a great hall designed for natural acoustics. Academic musicians often quickly become uncomfortable when a microphone is placed in front of them.Their many years in a practice room perfecting their skills and working hard to merge musical details with great expression can be destroyed with a bad microphone, a poor room, or a poor sound technician. Drum usage in a concert hall with voices or other instruments generally requires microphones for soloists. Putting a trap set in St. Paul's Cathedral, for example, almost seems a desecration of that beautiful space.
When Rock music began to influence society, it was an outgrowth of what the Black community had been doing for years. Elvis Presley among others used drums in his songs, danced, and sang in a freer style than previously performed by White musicians. It set the world on its heels and inadvertently helped with race integration in our country. But in the middle of this transformation, we still have the drums, or in this case, the drum set. The drum set became associated not necessarily with Black music but certainly with Rock and Popular music, a concept unacceptable in concert or church settings. Many of those in academia and in churches quickly relegated the drum set to its role in commercial music for the recording studio or for those events where sound amplification was required either for instruments or voices.
The market place, however, began to prevail and demand for the "new" sound (which was not really new at all) in concert halls and churches began to infringe on the attitude of resistance. Unfortunately instead of the concepts merging into a unified musical world for both concerts and church services, many remained strongly resistant and ran the other direction. We continue to have these battles although they seem almost passe' and predictable at times. Certainly such disagreements are valid, but in the end the people supporting trap set usage in concerts and churches are ultimately victorious due to public acclaim. In other words, with exceptions, people like the drums and are comfortable with trap sets in churches and in formal concerts. The division is no longer necessary and those holding onto an old ideal may end up in the catacombs of a heritage gone by such as the telegraph or the drive-in theatre.
Yet I will admit to respecting opinion or preference on this issue. A good friend once told me that he recognizes that using a trap set in a worship service is Biblical and seems to be a strong draw for growth and ministry, but he still does not like it. I appreciate his view which is based on personal taste and preference. What I disagree with are those who reject drum usage based on some sort of arbitrary code of excellence that has no historical or objective merit. The trap set is here to stay and to deny its role in the church and in the concert hall further drives a wedge between academia and the market place. To take it another step further and provide a distant internuncial, if the drums at one time were associated with African-American music, then as we integrate the races and the cultures in our country and work to refine our society with broad acceptance, then that inevitably ought to include an acceptance of all musical styles and instruments in both churches and concert halls. Obviously this is a tall order and a noble but difficult long-term result of musical inclusion.
Sunday, January 11, 2015
The Myth of the Happy Slave
A study of slave narratives sometimes reveals slaves who were happy with their environment. This idea is further supported by former slaves expressing their concern with freedom and the problems associated with the period we know as the reconstruction after the civil war. We read the documentation of these and we make historical conclusions that reference a particular time period and a reflection on the immediacy of the circumstances. If studying history in order to provide answers to current problems only looks backwards and only in the context of that which the environment at the time provided, then our ability to grow from knowledge is limited by our erroneous conclusions. The Happy Slave Narrative is one that finds the dutiful slave dancing, singing and working for their white masters and enjoying it. It finds said slave beginning to view their masters as surrogate parents and benefactors. The Happy Slave Narrative is a way to silence the truth and allows for a negating of any responsibility that this nation had/ has for its citizens. It divests black people of their humanity and reduces our representations, bodies, and minds to instruments happy to be of service to white masters (http://www.commdiginews.com/entertainment/leslie-jones-the-happy-slave-narrative-and-modern-day-minstrelsy-17849/#Bw5GopScDl3iyzx accessed 1/12/2015).
I recall running away from home when I was six years old due to my father wanting me to sweep the garage floor. I packed a few items, wrote a note, got permission from my dad, and took off down the street. When I reached the end of the street, I stood there for awhile, felt hungry, knew I should not cross the street without help, and decided to return home. My dad hugged and welcomed me back, gave me a snack and reminded me that I still needed to do some sweeping. Eager to make amends, I swept the garage floor (which in retrospect I realize had rather feeble results), and decided that all was well. I was once again happy with my circumstances.
Now from the above story a historian might conclude that I was the happiest when I was at home with protection, and with my basic needs being met, and comfortable with the required work, and this would not be a wrong conclusion, after all I was six years old at the time. Recognizing this anecdotal story is far from analogous to slavery, it does point to the Hierarchy of Needs chart by Abraham Maslow where humans need to have their physiological and safety needs met before needing love, esteem, and self-actualization. I suppose that had I stayed eternally six years old, I would have remained happy, although it is well to note that the actual running away implied a desire to improve my current circumstances, at least from my perspective. But knowing my basic needs had to be met, I accepted the authority of my dad in order to meet my fundamental needs. I may have wanted something different but ultimately I realized that my hunger and my fear of the unknown world led me back to security, and sadly a little bit of work!
Not all slave owners were evil monsters and there were many owners who practiced kindness and benevolence to their slaves (https://sites.google.com/site/antiquariansquill/academic-writing/the-caring-slave-owner--accessed 1/13/2015). In some instances of slavery, wise owners provided basic needs for their slaves in order to have greater productivity of their land and their business, not to mention the inevitable building of relationships in any kind of living situation. Human beings who live and work together are bound to form relationships of some kind, and some masters and slaves genuinely cared for each other (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2956.html, accessed 1/12/2015). Obviously abuse of this idea did take place and no amount of needs being met can substitute for pain and suffering, but we should neither talk about the extreme and obvious situations nor we should point to the instances of slave owners who treated their property as equals. Instead, we must discuss the human right for freedom of choice and equal opportunity. Slavery as a practice and a concept is indefensible. We do, however, need to discuss the happy quotient as it relates to the role of slaves and their future. While there is no desire for historical revision, there is a need to address the problem of life satisfaction versus the human requirement for freedom of choice. Beginning with the conclusion, every opportunity for freedom of choice should resound with rejoicing and fully embraced by individuals and by society, always within the legal responsibility of providing equal rights for all.
When the slaves were brought to our country from South Africa, as well as the West Indies, they had been grossly mistreated, disallowed from congregating, and considered property not human beings. Paranoia and suspicion followed the slaves from birth to death and their exportation to another country was primarily considered an economic decision for the original owners. European slave traders carried out the shipment of Africans to the Americas. The rulers of West African kingdoms participated in the trade, too. On the coast of Africa, local kings gathered captives from inland. The local kings then traded these captives for European goods, such as textiles, ironware, wine, and guns (http://www.csun.edu/~ae11859/documents/pdf/textbook/86_76-81.pdf Accessed 1/12/2015). Arriving in America, in spite of the lack of freedom, many slaves suddenly had their basic needs met including food, clothing, and shelter. Certainly an improvement from their previous state and a way to live reasonably comfortably, regardless of their improved life situation and regardless of their emotional state, the people still went from slavery to slavery and they were imprisoned due primarily to the despicable view of being property not people. No matter how many sides there may be to the story, and no matter how many ways it can be seen, it was slavery of human beings.
Their happiness, if one could call it that, was short-lived and primarily based on the lower levels of the hierarchy of needs. The reconstruction following the civil war was a messy affair and grossly unfair to the former slaves, but it was still freedom and the alternative to freedom is imprisonment. The efforts to subdue an entire race of people through slavery were over and it was time to move forward toward equality and opportunity for all. Yet such noble goals were and still are difficult and unfortunately it takes many years, tenacity, dedication, and education to achieve even a modicum of equality and opportunity for everyone. Meanwhile as our country shifted its system and attitudes toward refinement, there were likely some who preferred the old ways of having their basic needs met. But whether slaves or non-slaves were happy is entirely irrelevant to the requirement for race equality. Slavery is indefensible and to make a feeble attempt to justify it based on some kind of nebulous happy quotient is erroneous and anathema at best. I further submit that efforts to support the position of slaves being happy is generally unproductive except possibly for the historical reminder of the hierarchy of needs where people must have their physical and safety needs met before pursuing higher orders of thinking.
This does not mean we should squelch those narratives referencing the preference for slavery over freedom due to the problem of basic needs, but we should also consider the implication that such emphases is suggesting. By expending great energy finding examples of how some blacks were happier as slaves inevitably lends itself to preferring race obsequiousness and slavery over liberty, certainly unacceptable and flawed thinking. Yet such endeavors do remind us of the social challenges that faced blacks after the Civil War. While liberty and freedom of choice is always the goal, it does not come without fear, without dedicated effort, and without relentless commitment to progress and improvement. Being told what to do is often safer and more comfortable than making one's own decisions and setting one's own vision for the future.
At some point, however, justice and right need to prevail and need to express the wrongs of slavery and the rights of liberty and equal opportunity. Finding instances and examples of the benefits of slavery serve no purpose other than to cloud the issue and ultimately subjugate not only the people but also the concept of liberty and freedom. Efforts to justify the abject denigration of people based on some arbitrary "happy" quotient are to be disdained. The happy slave is a myth, and imprisonment is never to be desired nor embraced in any sense.
I recall running away from home when I was six years old due to my father wanting me to sweep the garage floor. I packed a few items, wrote a note, got permission from my dad, and took off down the street. When I reached the end of the street, I stood there for awhile, felt hungry, knew I should not cross the street without help, and decided to return home. My dad hugged and welcomed me back, gave me a snack and reminded me that I still needed to do some sweeping. Eager to make amends, I swept the garage floor (which in retrospect I realize had rather feeble results), and decided that all was well. I was once again happy with my circumstances.
Now from the above story a historian might conclude that I was the happiest when I was at home with protection, and with my basic needs being met, and comfortable with the required work, and this would not be a wrong conclusion, after all I was six years old at the time. Recognizing this anecdotal story is far from analogous to slavery, it does point to the Hierarchy of Needs chart by Abraham Maslow where humans need to have their physiological and safety needs met before needing love, esteem, and self-actualization. I suppose that had I stayed eternally six years old, I would have remained happy, although it is well to note that the actual running away implied a desire to improve my current circumstances, at least from my perspective. But knowing my basic needs had to be met, I accepted the authority of my dad in order to meet my fundamental needs. I may have wanted something different but ultimately I realized that my hunger and my fear of the unknown world led me back to security, and sadly a little bit of work!
Not all slave owners were evil monsters and there were many owners who practiced kindness and benevolence to their slaves (https://sites.google.com/site/antiquariansquill/academic-writing/the-caring-slave-owner--accessed 1/13/2015). In some instances of slavery, wise owners provided basic needs for their slaves in order to have greater productivity of their land and their business, not to mention the inevitable building of relationships in any kind of living situation. Human beings who live and work together are bound to form relationships of some kind, and some masters and slaves genuinely cared for each other (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2956.html, accessed 1/12/2015). Obviously abuse of this idea did take place and no amount of needs being met can substitute for pain and suffering, but we should neither talk about the extreme and obvious situations nor we should point to the instances of slave owners who treated their property as equals. Instead, we must discuss the human right for freedom of choice and equal opportunity. Slavery as a practice and a concept is indefensible. We do, however, need to discuss the happy quotient as it relates to the role of slaves and their future. While there is no desire for historical revision, there is a need to address the problem of life satisfaction versus the human requirement for freedom of choice. Beginning with the conclusion, every opportunity for freedom of choice should resound with rejoicing and fully embraced by individuals and by society, always within the legal responsibility of providing equal rights for all.
When the slaves were brought to our country from South Africa, as well as the West Indies, they had been grossly mistreated, disallowed from congregating, and considered property not human beings. Paranoia and suspicion followed the slaves from birth to death and their exportation to another country was primarily considered an economic decision for the original owners. European slave traders carried out the shipment of Africans to the Americas. The rulers of West African kingdoms participated in the trade, too. On the coast of Africa, local kings gathered captives from inland. The local kings then traded these captives for European goods, such as textiles, ironware, wine, and guns (http://www.csun.edu/~ae11859/documents/pdf/textbook/86_76-81.pdf Accessed 1/12/2015). Arriving in America, in spite of the lack of freedom, many slaves suddenly had their basic needs met including food, clothing, and shelter. Certainly an improvement from their previous state and a way to live reasonably comfortably, regardless of their improved life situation and regardless of their emotional state, the people still went from slavery to slavery and they were imprisoned due primarily to the despicable view of being property not people. No matter how many sides there may be to the story, and no matter how many ways it can be seen, it was slavery of human beings.
Their happiness, if one could call it that, was short-lived and primarily based on the lower levels of the hierarchy of needs. The reconstruction following the civil war was a messy affair and grossly unfair to the former slaves, but it was still freedom and the alternative to freedom is imprisonment. The efforts to subdue an entire race of people through slavery were over and it was time to move forward toward equality and opportunity for all. Yet such noble goals were and still are difficult and unfortunately it takes many years, tenacity, dedication, and education to achieve even a modicum of equality and opportunity for everyone. Meanwhile as our country shifted its system and attitudes toward refinement, there were likely some who preferred the old ways of having their basic needs met. But whether slaves or non-slaves were happy is entirely irrelevant to the requirement for race equality. Slavery is indefensible and to make a feeble attempt to justify it based on some kind of nebulous happy quotient is erroneous and anathema at best. I further submit that efforts to support the position of slaves being happy is generally unproductive except possibly for the historical reminder of the hierarchy of needs where people must have their physical and safety needs met before pursuing higher orders of thinking.
This does not mean we should squelch those narratives referencing the preference for slavery over freedom due to the problem of basic needs, but we should also consider the implication that such emphases is suggesting. By expending great energy finding examples of how some blacks were happier as slaves inevitably lends itself to preferring race obsequiousness and slavery over liberty, certainly unacceptable and flawed thinking. Yet such endeavors do remind us of the social challenges that faced blacks after the Civil War. While liberty and freedom of choice is always the goal, it does not come without fear, without dedicated effort, and without relentless commitment to progress and improvement. Being told what to do is often safer and more comfortable than making one's own decisions and setting one's own vision for the future.
At some point, however, justice and right need to prevail and need to express the wrongs of slavery and the rights of liberty and equal opportunity. Finding instances and examples of the benefits of slavery serve no purpose other than to cloud the issue and ultimately subjugate not only the people but also the concept of liberty and freedom. Efforts to justify the abject denigration of people based on some arbitrary "happy" quotient are to be disdained. The happy slave is a myth, and imprisonment is never to be desired nor embraced in any sense.
Wednesday, January 07, 2015
Don't lose the Canon, but let's redefine it
Just read a marvelous piece called "What We Lose if We Lose the Canon" by Arthur Krystal. In this pointed essay, the author postures that as the canon changes and starts becoming commercialized, we are in danger of losing the idea of what makes literature great not just good. He defines great by that which makes us think (http://chronicle.com/article/What-We-Lose-if-We-Lose-the/150991/). He uses several examples of great authors including John Donne, Francis Bacon, Emily Dickinson, William Faulkner, Henry James, Shakespeare, Chekhov, Dickens, Tolstoy, among many others. He also makes brief reference to those authors that I assume "don't make us think" including Nora Roberts, James Lee Burke, Clive Cussler, even Pearl Buck.
Having spent a lifetime reading "great" and "good" and sometimes even poor literature, I certainly understand his position. He is not wrong that great literature, as defined by the test of time, the collective agreement from critics, and from usage in colleges and universities (my definitions, not his), makes us think. Great literature seems to have great emotional and psychological impact on the reader, causing us to return to the works, often many times. I have read and reread Les Miserables by Victor Hugo and will likely do so the rest of my life. I have not reread any Mickey Spillane, Louis L'Amour, John Steinbeck, or David Morrell nor will I do so. Not that I didn't thoroughly enjoy their books and believe I am shaped by their and many others' writings, but the writing style and stories served my purposes at the time and need no revisiting. Those writers did make me think (sorry to tell you that Mr. Krystal) and those writers did tell a great story, but, in general, I am now more impacted by "great" literature that is acknowledged as such.
I further agree with the author that as we put good authors on the same level as great authors, we risk not only losing history but also losing our sense of excellence. As he said, "Some books simply reflect a deeper understanding of the world, of history, of human relationships, of literature itself than do other books." In many special ways, great literature lifts us beyond the scope of everyday living and places us at a higher plane above the messiness and toward the sublime; whereas good literature or popular literature tends to emphasize current problems or personal issues of characters. All that to say, I generally agree with the author's concern about losing the canon of quality literature and replacing it with commercialized literature. Where I part ways with the author is in the area of holding on to the same canon and the resistance to altering it as the world marches forward in areas of refinement and progress. James Lee Burke may be somewhat short-lived as a writer of substance and his books may be considered popular fiction, but he is still a very fine writer and is worth considering for the "canon" of literature. Popularity, of course, does not automatically make something mediocre and as we work to present a new canon, we will inevitably miss the mark at times.
Such was true of Giacomo Meyerbeer, 1791-1864, a famed opera composer in the Romantic era of music, a composer destined for greatness whose music was highly regarded and expected to enter the canon. But, alas, his music did not withstand the test of time and is now relegated to very few performances mainly of some minor historical interest. This is normal and expected of most art and literature, but it does not mean we should focus our attention only on those works that made the list. In fact, a society that moves forward is that which searches for a new canon, a new body of works that encompasses the past, present, and the future. Furthermore, the canon the author describes is comprised primarily of white, mostly male, writers whose works have made some kind of impact on the world. But who decides this canon and why can it not change?
All music, art, and literature was new at one time and the market determined to an extent, right or wrong, its place in the world either as a short-lived work or for sustained benefit. We absolutely must keep pressing forward in the arts and in literature and search for a new canon that embraces the past greatness while seeking the new. We may miss the target and we could fall into the temporary trappings of commercialism, but time will ultimately prove the worth, and time will redefine the canon. Meanwhile, in spite of our failings, we must keep searching for a new canon, something that includes minorities, demonstrates diversity, and has significant meaning. The problem with criticizing commercialism in the arts and literature is that one inadvertently rejects the new and only loves the old. A proponent of both, I posture we continue to redefine the canon while seeking after truth, excellence, and meaning. Mostly, to reiterate, whether it is new or old, it should always make us think.
Having spent a lifetime reading "great" and "good" and sometimes even poor literature, I certainly understand his position. He is not wrong that great literature, as defined by the test of time, the collective agreement from critics, and from usage in colleges and universities (my definitions, not his), makes us think. Great literature seems to have great emotional and psychological impact on the reader, causing us to return to the works, often many times. I have read and reread Les Miserables by Victor Hugo and will likely do so the rest of my life. I have not reread any Mickey Spillane, Louis L'Amour, John Steinbeck, or David Morrell nor will I do so. Not that I didn't thoroughly enjoy their books and believe I am shaped by their and many others' writings, but the writing style and stories served my purposes at the time and need no revisiting. Those writers did make me think (sorry to tell you that Mr. Krystal) and those writers did tell a great story, but, in general, I am now more impacted by "great" literature that is acknowledged as such.
I further agree with the author that as we put good authors on the same level as great authors, we risk not only losing history but also losing our sense of excellence. As he said, "Some books simply reflect a deeper understanding of the world, of history, of human relationships, of literature itself than do other books." In many special ways, great literature lifts us beyond the scope of everyday living and places us at a higher plane above the messiness and toward the sublime; whereas good literature or popular literature tends to emphasize current problems or personal issues of characters. All that to say, I generally agree with the author's concern about losing the canon of quality literature and replacing it with commercialized literature. Where I part ways with the author is in the area of holding on to the same canon and the resistance to altering it as the world marches forward in areas of refinement and progress. James Lee Burke may be somewhat short-lived as a writer of substance and his books may be considered popular fiction, but he is still a very fine writer and is worth considering for the "canon" of literature. Popularity, of course, does not automatically make something mediocre and as we work to present a new canon, we will inevitably miss the mark at times.
Such was true of Giacomo Meyerbeer, 1791-1864, a famed opera composer in the Romantic era of music, a composer destined for greatness whose music was highly regarded and expected to enter the canon. But, alas, his music did not withstand the test of time and is now relegated to very few performances mainly of some minor historical interest. This is normal and expected of most art and literature, but it does not mean we should focus our attention only on those works that made the list. In fact, a society that moves forward is that which searches for a new canon, a new body of works that encompasses the past, present, and the future. Furthermore, the canon the author describes is comprised primarily of white, mostly male, writers whose works have made some kind of impact on the world. But who decides this canon and why can it not change?
All music, art, and literature was new at one time and the market determined to an extent, right or wrong, its place in the world either as a short-lived work or for sustained benefit. We absolutely must keep pressing forward in the arts and in literature and search for a new canon that embraces the past greatness while seeking the new. We may miss the target and we could fall into the temporary trappings of commercialism, but time will ultimately prove the worth, and time will redefine the canon. Meanwhile, in spite of our failings, we must keep searching for a new canon, something that includes minorities, demonstrates diversity, and has significant meaning. The problem with criticizing commercialism in the arts and literature is that one inadvertently rejects the new and only loves the old. A proponent of both, I posture we continue to redefine the canon while seeking after truth, excellence, and meaning. Mostly, to reiterate, whether it is new or old, it should always make us think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)