Teach enough students for long enough and eventually you start to experience some of your own lessons. For a while now I have been "ranting" both here and in my classes about the need to always look for a new perspective whenever a musical experience starts to feel overdone. A few days ago I found myself with that exact need and the end result proved very inspiring.
I was sitting in on drums for a friend's band - something I have been doing more of lately and have been enjoying so much that I now, somewhat secretly I suppose, am hopeful to do more of it more often. Anyway, four hours of "classic" cover songs is usually not exactly my idea of musical euphoria these days. Yes, I see the hypocrisy of my attitude - I should only be so lucky as to have a band, any band, cover one of my own songs, but I digress...
Anyway, in an effort to make things a bit more interesting for me, I decided to see what would happen if I played the kit for the entire night "left hand lead." (see Simon Phillips for pretty much the absolute master in this technique.) Turned out the 4 hours flew by for me. What a blast!
Sure a simple lesson in the end, and one that I should have known would produce results, but while in the midst of it I was really captivated. Looks like there will be at least a breif addendum to my Monday lectures...
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Sunday, November 22, 2009
New Creative Perspectives
Let's be honest. On some level the Singer-Songwriter paradigm has been successfully, and fully mined by some of the world's greatest musical artists. That is not to say the art form is dead or irrelevant - far from it, there are countless amazing songs being turned out even today - but the fact is that the notion of innovation in the genre is a good bit less present. The sense of "Wow! I never expected that." Is not really all the common. There are certainly great shows and amazing performances and all that, but that is not really what I am referring to. I am looking more at the notion of approach to the craft.
So, as I am completing the writing of my next CD, I have decided to conduct a little musical experiment on myself. Worse case, I will have some great teaching opportunities with my students with regard to technology and how it relates to the creative process; but my real hope is to push my own musical perceptions to such a further point that while the sonic end result sounds "normal" the creative/performance process of the individual tracks is new, unique, and inspiring.
Here's one example: The Matrix Piano. Now there are lots of far better musicians than I, using devices like the Monome, or the new Launchpad, and others to interface with sound; but, with respect to their work, the results generally seem somewhat musically counter intuitive, and many times I am - granted cinically - left with the thought, "OK, but where is the song?"
(Forgive the overly jargon based next bit, by the way...) What I am working with right now is developing a viable matrix on an 8x8 grid MIDI controller that will allow for diatonic based musical thoughts processed through a vastly different perspective that the standard piano keyboard. To be fair, I am also working with the same 8x8 matrix in a more guitar fingerboard based context just to cover another base. We'll see.
The point is that if I am very lucky the end result will be music that is still considered viable and appealing to the listener, but the content more compelling due to the shift in creative process priorities - or more to the point my perspective on the creation/performance of the songs. As I said, if nothing else, this should provide some pretty cool teaching moments, which is no small benefit in and of itself.
Oh, for those few of you who have been emailing and such about the new CD's progress, I promise, even with this new creative approach, it is very much in the works, the music is something pretty special, and I'd like to think worth the wait; but, in the end, all that I suppose is up to you.
So, as I am completing the writing of my next CD, I have decided to conduct a little musical experiment on myself. Worse case, I will have some great teaching opportunities with my students with regard to technology and how it relates to the creative process; but my real hope is to push my own musical perceptions to such a further point that while the sonic end result sounds "normal" the creative/performance process of the individual tracks is new, unique, and inspiring.
Here's one example: The Matrix Piano. Now there are lots of far better musicians than I, using devices like the Monome, or the new Launchpad, and others to interface with sound; but, with respect to their work, the results generally seem somewhat musically counter intuitive, and many times I am - granted cinically - left with the thought, "OK, but where is the song?"
(Forgive the overly jargon based next bit, by the way...) What I am working with right now is developing a viable matrix on an 8x8 grid MIDI controller that will allow for diatonic based musical thoughts processed through a vastly different perspective that the standard piano keyboard. To be fair, I am also working with the same 8x8 matrix in a more guitar fingerboard based context just to cover another base. We'll see.
The point is that if I am very lucky the end result will be music that is still considered viable and appealing to the listener, but the content more compelling due to the shift in creative process priorities - or more to the point my perspective on the creation/performance of the songs. As I said, if nothing else, this should provide some pretty cool teaching moments, which is no small benefit in and of itself.
Oh, for those few of you who have been emailing and such about the new CD's progress, I promise, even with this new creative approach, it is very much in the works, the music is something pretty special, and I'd like to think worth the wait; but, in the end, all that I suppose is up to you.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
The student who creis wolf
My more advanced student kinda hit a temporary wall a few days ago. The good news is that we got past it fairly quickly, but their initial impression of the situation, and treating the matter as essentially insignificant, struck me as troublesome.
The assignment had been to create a series of musically related themes (7 seconds, 15 seconds, and 24 seconds) that could be used in a news broadcast - a station had actually requested the work from them, so this was not entirely a hypothetical task for them. Anyway, as a way to ensure a certain amount of quality control, I asked them provide the actual ProTools session data, not just the final mixes. I had explained that this was an important part of the work they were doing so that there would be the opportunity to make any last corrections and thereby ensure a certain level of quality control.
For the most part they did a pretty good job, but a few either did not follow the instructions regarding the timings or in providing the actual session data. The issue of a grade for the work aside, when I brought this up to the class, several students commented that since the end result sounded so good (which it certainly did) that it should not really matter that the details of the actual assignment were incorrect.
And so ensued a bit of a rant on my part dealing with the need to make sure that you always provide the client with exactly what they request. No matter what. Now, if in the process you come up with something even better, then it is certainly viable to provide that as well, but to essentially ignore the specific request, can easily jeopardize the possibility of new work later from the client.
Granted I was on a bit of rant, but it was like I was speaking gibberish. There seemed to be a complete disconnect over the realities of how the industry really works. Artistic freedom must be earned, and I now realize that may be a far harder concept for my students to grasp than I had originally speculated.
We talked further, and it proved an interesting conversation, but it was such an odd starting point to me. I know full well that there is an immense amount of talent in that room. Frankly, I find it staggering what they are capable of; but the confusion of arrogance with ego (another, more detailed topic for another time) was concerning.
One even commented, "Would you tell Bob Dylan to change his music for something like this?" Of course not. Even if he was willing to have some of his music used in a news spot, it would likely be taken from already completed work, not a request for new material for this specific objective. And even then, no, I would not tell Bob Dylan to change his music. But the comment is a bit absurd any way, and the fact that the absurdity was not immediately seen is really my point here.
Dylan has such a proven track record that he walks into a room with a musical credibility of such magnitude that anything he says has to be taken seriously. But a 16 year old does not have that. The trip-up for them was to think this referred to a lack of talent. It's sort of the like a reverse boy-who-cried-wolf: students, younger musicians, have to be establish that they can successfully navigate within the rules first. Then once they break them, a client knows it was done for a musically valid reason, not just cause it's the easy way out.
The assignment had been to create a series of musically related themes (7 seconds, 15 seconds, and 24 seconds) that could be used in a news broadcast - a station had actually requested the work from them, so this was not entirely a hypothetical task for them. Anyway, as a way to ensure a certain amount of quality control, I asked them provide the actual ProTools session data, not just the final mixes. I had explained that this was an important part of the work they were doing so that there would be the opportunity to make any last corrections and thereby ensure a certain level of quality control.
For the most part they did a pretty good job, but a few either did not follow the instructions regarding the timings or in providing the actual session data. The issue of a grade for the work aside, when I brought this up to the class, several students commented that since the end result sounded so good (which it certainly did) that it should not really matter that the details of the actual assignment were incorrect.
And so ensued a bit of a rant on my part dealing with the need to make sure that you always provide the client with exactly what they request. No matter what. Now, if in the process you come up with something even better, then it is certainly viable to provide that as well, but to essentially ignore the specific request, can easily jeopardize the possibility of new work later from the client.
Granted I was on a bit of rant, but it was like I was speaking gibberish. There seemed to be a complete disconnect over the realities of how the industry really works. Artistic freedom must be earned, and I now realize that may be a far harder concept for my students to grasp than I had originally speculated.
We talked further, and it proved an interesting conversation, but it was such an odd starting point to me. I know full well that there is an immense amount of talent in that room. Frankly, I find it staggering what they are capable of; but the confusion of arrogance with ego (another, more detailed topic for another time) was concerning.
One even commented, "Would you tell Bob Dylan to change his music for something like this?" Of course not. Even if he was willing to have some of his music used in a news spot, it would likely be taken from already completed work, not a request for new material for this specific objective. And even then, no, I would not tell Bob Dylan to change his music. But the comment is a bit absurd any way, and the fact that the absurdity was not immediately seen is really my point here.
Dylan has such a proven track record that he walks into a room with a musical credibility of such magnitude that anything he says has to be taken seriously. But a 16 year old does not have that. The trip-up for them was to think this referred to a lack of talent. It's sort of the like a reverse boy-who-cried-wolf: students, younger musicians, have to be establish that they can successfully navigate within the rules first. Then once they break them, a client knows it was done for a musically valid reason, not just cause it's the easy way out.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Learning curve - student musical maturity
Last night my students put on one of their CMAS concerts and, in addition to proving they are able to continually raise the bar each time with regard to their writing, performance, and production skills, they also demonstrated a new kind of musical maturity that I had not seen yet from them.
The shows themselves are pretty musically diverse since there are so many styles and tastes across the student demographic of the program. This is made all the more pronounced since they can only perform original material at the event so they, like most of us, write what they enjoy. This is all good, and after so many years of this, not really very suprising to me.
What was interesting about last night was that for the first time there seemed to be this universal sense that no matter the performer, no matter the style or skill level, every act was going to be given the same "start treatment." Keep in mind that the program is so big (a great problem to have) that many students working the production end of the show do no know all of the performers that well, if at all. This is significant and it was very interesting to simply observe them transition from "I'm going to do a good job just for my friends," to a far more mature, "I'm going to do a good job for everyone, because there are hundreds of people here watching this show and I need to make sure they get their money's worth."
It was even more impressive when we did the post show debrief that we always have to hear comments solely related not to, "I want 'this' or 'that' next time for me," but "I have an idea how we can train the newer student's in the program to learn to be more involved in the success of the event."
They are starting to see the forest-for-the-trees and it's pretty cool. Of course, each time they raise the bar it moves that much higher, so it'll be interesting to see if they can maintain this for their next show in mid-December.
The shows themselves are pretty musically diverse since there are so many styles and tastes across the student demographic of the program. This is made all the more pronounced since they can only perform original material at the event so they, like most of us, write what they enjoy. This is all good, and after so many years of this, not really very suprising to me.
What was interesting about last night was that for the first time there seemed to be this universal sense that no matter the performer, no matter the style or skill level, every act was going to be given the same "start treatment." Keep in mind that the program is so big (a great problem to have) that many students working the production end of the show do no know all of the performers that well, if at all. This is significant and it was very interesting to simply observe them transition from "I'm going to do a good job just for my friends," to a far more mature, "I'm going to do a good job for everyone, because there are hundreds of people here watching this show and I need to make sure they get their money's worth."
It was even more impressive when we did the post show debrief that we always have to hear comments solely related not to, "I want 'this' or 'that' next time for me," but "I have an idea how we can train the newer student's in the program to learn to be more involved in the success of the event."
They are starting to see the forest-for-the-trees and it's pretty cool. Of course, each time they raise the bar it moves that much higher, so it'll be interesting to see if they can maintain this for their next show in mid-December.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
The truth behind good music - what exactly are we teaching? (part 1)
If there is only one thing I have learned from teaching, it's that students generally seem obsessed with the idea of "good versus bad" music. ""I like this...I don't like that...", etc. In and of itself there is nothing wrong with this. Frankly as consumers, it's important to evaluate what we're listening to based on personal preferences. But as a student of music, if you don't move past that point of evaluation you risk missing out on some really wonderful things.
I encourage my students to take a different approach. Start with good versus bad - if nothing else it's good to get that part out of the way - but then move on to a more important question, "is it viable?" In other words, like it or not, is it, on some musical level, working?
The distinction is important. The issue of good versus bad is always going to be pretty subjective. No real way around that, and to some extent it's a bit of a waste of time after a while. But the concept of musical validity is far more objective because it allows you to focus on actual fundamental music concepts. And if even one of those concepts can be found represented in the music in question then there is another way to get inside the music past "I like it so I'll work on it," or some such.
And that's the key step. At that point you're open to whatever the music holds for its own sake, not because of personal preference. That seems like a pretty good teaching goal to me.
I encourage my students to take a different approach. Start with good versus bad - if nothing else it's good to get that part out of the way - but then move on to a more important question, "is it viable?" In other words, like it or not, is it, on some musical level, working?
The distinction is important. The issue of good versus bad is always going to be pretty subjective. No real way around that, and to some extent it's a bit of a waste of time after a while. But the concept of musical validity is far more objective because it allows you to focus on actual fundamental music concepts. And if even one of those concepts can be found represented in the music in question then there is another way to get inside the music past "I like it so I'll work on it," or some such.
And that's the key step. At that point you're open to whatever the music holds for its own sake, not because of personal preference. That seems like a pretty good teaching goal to me.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Turn up the silence - are iPods and other mp3 players the enemy?
Many of my students are, at times, of the impression that I deliberately try to act against their own sense of logic. Now, to be fair, there is probably some truth to that idea, though not in the manner they identify.
One example would be my desire for a fairly quiet learning environment. Keep in mind that I run a music program. A rock music program. But here's the thing: the issue is not so much the "quiet," it's the need to be able to accurately hear everything.
This has been one of the more significant learning experiences for me in developing and facilitating the CMAS (Contemporary Music and Sound) program. I guess I've been doing so much of this kind of work for so long that the notion of being able to really hear the details seemed kinda self-evident to me. Apparently not.
On the other hand, it's not really the students' fault. The proliferation of iPods and mp3 players (I have a treasured iPod myself) has been a really good thing in many ways, except perhaps for one: they create an artificial sense of auditory isolation. I say artificial because the fact is that by listening almost exclusively in headphones a person simply does not hear the elements of the recording accurately. Not even close. It's just the physics of it. (See my comments about crossfeeding for more on this and how to get around the problem.)
So they have learned to hear very inaccurately, and this inaccuracy has created a false sense of auditory reality when they work. The toughest lesson I find for even my more advanced level students is the process of replacing their past auditory expectations with new, more accurate, instincts. It takes a while, but it certainly can be done; and it's very cool when one of them takes a step forward on it, but it definitely takes some pretty serious patience to say nothing of deliberate, work on their part.
Like everything else though it is a process. One I suppose I have become somewhat hypersensitive to. I love my iPod but actually use it almost exclusively as part of my car audio system - I rarely use it with headphones. In fact, now that I am so obsessed with crossfeeding, I am not certain I could use it with headphones and not go a bit nuts without some kind of CF workaround - gotta look into that I suppose.
Anyway, back to my students and my love of messing with their logic - it's really not about the silence, it's about being able to hear. On the other hand, I always know when a student really has learned the key elements of the program: when they are able to make the distinction freely on their own. Who knows, maybe in this case, logic is over-rated.
One example would be my desire for a fairly quiet learning environment. Keep in mind that I run a music program. A rock music program. But here's the thing: the issue is not so much the "quiet," it's the need to be able to accurately hear everything.
This has been one of the more significant learning experiences for me in developing and facilitating the CMAS (Contemporary Music and Sound) program. I guess I've been doing so much of this kind of work for so long that the notion of being able to really hear the details seemed kinda self-evident to me. Apparently not.
On the other hand, it's not really the students' fault. The proliferation of iPods and mp3 players (I have a treasured iPod myself) has been a really good thing in many ways, except perhaps for one: they create an artificial sense of auditory isolation. I say artificial because the fact is that by listening almost exclusively in headphones a person simply does not hear the elements of the recording accurately. Not even close. It's just the physics of it. (See my comments about crossfeeding for more on this and how to get around the problem.)
So they have learned to hear very inaccurately, and this inaccuracy has created a false sense of auditory reality when they work. The toughest lesson I find for even my more advanced level students is the process of replacing their past auditory expectations with new, more accurate, instincts. It takes a while, but it certainly can be done; and it's very cool when one of them takes a step forward on it, but it definitely takes some pretty serious patience to say nothing of deliberate, work on their part.
Like everything else though it is a process. One I suppose I have become somewhat hypersensitive to. I love my iPod but actually use it almost exclusively as part of my car audio system - I rarely use it with headphones. In fact, now that I am so obsessed with crossfeeding, I am not certain I could use it with headphones and not go a bit nuts without some kind of CF workaround - gotta look into that I suppose.
Anyway, back to my students and my love of messing with their logic - it's really not about the silence, it's about being able to hear. On the other hand, I always know when a student really has learned the key elements of the program: when they are able to make the distinction freely on their own. Who knows, maybe in this case, logic is over-rated.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Wolves and Sheep (update)
Somewhere in the chaos I had the idea that at least part of this blog would be to document the creation of my next album, "Wolves and Sheep," so taking a bit of a break from my music education observations, here's the current scoop:
So right now there are about 15 songs in various states of completion - in other words, the basic framework is complete, though there may be some minor re-writing to do on either the music, lyrics, or both. Of those, 5 or so are fully composed, though I suppose once I get to tracking them in the studio, a whole 'nother set of options will likely open up. There are also a literally countless group of riffs and ideas that may or may not turn into fully formed pieces. Also, in general, nothing is for sure till the song is fully realized in production, so certainly those numbers are gonna change.
In any case, the seemingly endless stops and starts on this for the past year or so seem to be finally aligning themselves into a workable plan and the project is beginning to take a form of sorts. The basic idea is to create a two part CD. The first half will be the music presented in "normal" mixes for standard audio systems like home stereos, cars, etc. The second half will be the same material presented in crossfed mixes specifically intended for headphone listening, which, thanks to the massive popularity of mp3 players, has become an equally typical listening environment.
Of course with the limitation of only 80 minutes available on a CD, this really means only 40 minutes of unique material. Interestingly, this is having the unintended effect making me be perceived by some as a kind of recording arts purist as that is pretty much the limit that was experienced during the years when vinyl records were the standard format for distribution. To be fair, I probably am a bit of a purest in general, but it was only recently that I found it evidenced in such a way.
Ok, so enough the trivial, the real essence of this project seems to be that the sound itself has evolved significantly over the past year or so. As an example, the rhythm tracks are all being dominated by really cool world percussion grooves that I have to say have been a blast to compose, play and record. There are still drum kits within the textures, but there is a different kind of life to these tunes largely due to the timbre shift. Another element taking hold is the use of choirs. Full on, massive choirs, in some cases, not just the expected, if not typical, vocal harmonies and overdubbing. Certainly this is adding a significant load to the production end of things; but, man, it's also really pushing me musically, which, all the rest of it aside, I find just fantastic.
The last part of all of it may be the more "ambient" material that has been emerging lately. It seems to be an offshoot of a lot of the looping I seem to be fond of when performing live, but that is not always a true representation of the original recording of the song. Hard to tell at this point where that is gonna lead, but I guess that's the beauty of all this. As it evolves, I can continue to update.
So right now there are about 15 songs in various states of completion - in other words, the basic framework is complete, though there may be some minor re-writing to do on either the music, lyrics, or both. Of those, 5 or so are fully composed, though I suppose once I get to tracking them in the studio, a whole 'nother set of options will likely open up. There are also a literally countless group of riffs and ideas that may or may not turn into fully formed pieces. Also, in general, nothing is for sure till the song is fully realized in production, so certainly those numbers are gonna change.
In any case, the seemingly endless stops and starts on this for the past year or so seem to be finally aligning themselves into a workable plan and the project is beginning to take a form of sorts. The basic idea is to create a two part CD. The first half will be the music presented in "normal" mixes for standard audio systems like home stereos, cars, etc. The second half will be the same material presented in crossfed mixes specifically intended for headphone listening, which, thanks to the massive popularity of mp3 players, has become an equally typical listening environment.
Of course with the limitation of only 80 minutes available on a CD, this really means only 40 minutes of unique material. Interestingly, this is having the unintended effect making me be perceived by some as a kind of recording arts purist as that is pretty much the limit that was experienced during the years when vinyl records were the standard format for distribution. To be fair, I probably am a bit of a purest in general, but it was only recently that I found it evidenced in such a way.
Ok, so enough the trivial, the real essence of this project seems to be that the sound itself has evolved significantly over the past year or so. As an example, the rhythm tracks are all being dominated by really cool world percussion grooves that I have to say have been a blast to compose, play and record. There are still drum kits within the textures, but there is a different kind of life to these tunes largely due to the timbre shift. Another element taking hold is the use of choirs. Full on, massive choirs, in some cases, not just the expected, if not typical, vocal harmonies and overdubbing. Certainly this is adding a significant load to the production end of things; but, man, it's also really pushing me musically, which, all the rest of it aside, I find just fantastic.
The last part of all of it may be the more "ambient" material that has been emerging lately. It seems to be an offshoot of a lot of the looping I seem to be fond of when performing live, but that is not always a true representation of the original recording of the song. Hard to tell at this point where that is gonna lead, but I guess that's the beauty of all this. As it evolves, I can continue to update.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
A working theory
I recently had the opportunity to do some final testing on my crossfeeding headphone mixing procedures and I am happy to report that it is, so far, remarkably successful. The basics of this last testing was pretty simple. I produced an entire 23 track CD - about 70 minutes of music with a wide variance in style/genre - entirely using my crossfeeding methods.
The proof of the success was equally simple. The sample tracks of the final CD have gone over unbelievably well. The implications of this are pretty significant. The most obvious are that I am now capable of doing high end studio work pretty much anywhere, anytime - a blissfully freeing notion. It also means an incredibly important tool for my students. It means that the cost of a "pure" room for mixing, for anyone, is now rooted almost entirely in the cost of a high quality set of headphones - imagine, for example, the benefit to college students studying audio production living in dorms. (FYI, Earbuds, and anything by Bose, are not going to be acceptable for any kind of quality result due to a lack of uniform frequency response and a significant tendency to color the sound, respectively.) There is also the possibility of creating a version of the process within the RTAS, VST, and AU plug-in formats which might mean a viable monetizing opportunity.
Anyway, as this all begins to play out, it is really exciting to know that the results are being so well received. Makes me feel like there are countless possibility opening up.
The proof of the success was equally simple. The sample tracks of the final CD have gone over unbelievably well. The implications of this are pretty significant. The most obvious are that I am now capable of doing high end studio work pretty much anywhere, anytime - a blissfully freeing notion. It also means an incredibly important tool for my students. It means that the cost of a "pure" room for mixing, for anyone, is now rooted almost entirely in the cost of a high quality set of headphones - imagine, for example, the benefit to college students studying audio production living in dorms. (FYI, Earbuds, and anything by Bose, are not going to be acceptable for any kind of quality result due to a lack of uniform frequency response and a significant tendency to color the sound, respectively.) There is also the possibility of creating a version of the process within the RTAS, VST, and AU plug-in formats which might mean a viable monetizing opportunity.
Anyway, as this all begins to play out, it is really exciting to know that the results are being so well received. Makes me feel like there are countless possibility opening up.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Joy versus fun
The list of former teachers of mine who were far kinder and patient with me than I deserved is surely staggering. One of the more significant (to be fair, there are certainly many) is Robert Billups. Actually, Dr. Robert Billups, but I recall he had an aversion to such monikers - yet another important lesson he taught me. I knew Bob while at the University of Arizona in the mid-1990s. He was one of my conducting professors (the other was Gregg Hanson - whom along with Bob, rank as tow of the most musically pure people I have ever known.)
Anyway, Bob was the director of the U of A orchestras, briefly, till he had to take an eventually permanent leave of absence due to some medical issues. I was lucky enough to be one of his TAs for a bit of time, and he really opened up a whole new perspective of music to me. But of all the lessons I learned with him the one I still hold dearest is also the one that was the most subtle. In fact, I don't ever remember actually talking about it with him in any of our countless conversations. And yet, as I look back, I cannot help but always come to it. The lesson was simply this: Joy.
Bob always struck me as pretty scholarly. Like Gregg, he always seemed very musically wise and always, always a least one step ahead of me - usually several. But over time I have come to have a far different image in my head when I think of Bob: the joyous, beaming smile. Particularly when conducting.
It took me years of growing up to feel like I had even a cursory understanding of it, and even now I am not certain that I am there yet. Bob literally radiated joy when he was on the podium. It was simply undeniable, and, I now realize, strikingly infectious. No matter the quality of the sound created, it seemed impossible to leave one of Bob's rehearsals feeling bad. You just could not do it. The joy was too palpable.
On the other hand, I recall several times, after running a rehearsal myself, symphony members coming up to me and asking if I could not do more of the conducting as they felt Bob's was at times so hard to follow. I'm embarrassed to admit that at the time I was very flattered by this, and it served to boost my ego in ways I certainly did not and still do not deserve. But more to the point, a while ago I realized that the problem was really not Bob's conducting, it was that the symphony members who would speak to me were looking for the wrong things from him, and worse, they actually missed a priceless opportunity.
But we seem to be overwhelmed with the need to have fun. It is not remotely the same thing. If there is only one thing I would like my students to learn it is that joy and fun are not the same thing. As I have said, music is about joy.
"Joy" – noun: the emotion of great delight or happiness caused by something exceptionally good or satisfying; keen pleasure; elation.
"Fun" – noun: something that provides mirth or amusement.
Fun is far too fleeting. Plus, eventually, no matter how "gifted" you are, the fun is going to stop and you're going to have to do some real work to musically evolve. I firmly believe this is the point were so many people stop playing music. I hear it all the time. "Well, ya' know, I just kinda lost interest." Give me a break! No you didn't. I simply don't believe that. What I think happened is that you lost your sense of the pure joy music can give you. Remember the feeling you got from music when you were the age of my two year old son, Gray? That's the pure joy of music. I hope Gray is able to retain it. In any case, I also believe it's because it's just so much simpler to focus on having fun; but again, once it feels like work - and if there is no joy to counter that - well, of course you lose interest. Who wouldn't?
I know it sounds harsh - which is not my intent - but I am so convinced of this theory of "Musical Joy," that I feel it self-evidently universal. Historically, so many of us view Beethoven as an ultimate musical genius - a label he certainly deserves; but we also know he struggled - he worked, hard - to write his music at times. (By the way, I know the easy path here would be to simply point out the subtext of his 9th symphony - the "Ode to Joy" - but I am not going to take the easy path on this one.) Even if one wanted to blame that struggle on his going deaf, the fact is it required a nearly inhuman work-ethic to accomplish all he did. We know from his own letters and journals that he struggled. Constantly battling his own diminishing sense of self as his illness (check out a fantastic book called "Beethoven's Hair" for the details) took more and more control. Certainly not fun.
No. I personally believe what really kept him going was that he managed to retain that pure sense of musical joy that first captured him when he started his musical journey as a young child. I for one have never bought into the accounts that claimed Beethoven to be arrogant. I believe is was simply certain. Not of himself, of his music. Somewhere inside he always retained the joy. My proof? Listen to his music. Or better yet, play it yourself. Either way the joy is there. Even when the context is dark, as it often was with Beethoven, there is still joy.
And so I come back to the seemingly simple lesson I got from Robert Billups about joy and fun. It has nothing to do with musical style or genre. In fact, it is not exclusive to music. It applies to anything we do in life. What Bob was able to do, I am certain I could work for the rest of my life every day, and still not quite have it right. He was joyous on the podium. Always. Every time. Sure his technique was imperfect. So what? I now know real music has little if anything to do with technique. Real music is about joy. Perfect, pure joy. It was miraculous to watch him. Joyous.
Anyway, Bob was the director of the U of A orchestras, briefly, till he had to take an eventually permanent leave of absence due to some medical issues. I was lucky enough to be one of his TAs for a bit of time, and he really opened up a whole new perspective of music to me. But of all the lessons I learned with him the one I still hold dearest is also the one that was the most subtle. In fact, I don't ever remember actually talking about it with him in any of our countless conversations. And yet, as I look back, I cannot help but always come to it. The lesson was simply this: Joy.
Bob always struck me as pretty scholarly. Like Gregg, he always seemed very musically wise and always, always a least one step ahead of me - usually several. But over time I have come to have a far different image in my head when I think of Bob: the joyous, beaming smile. Particularly when conducting.
It took me years of growing up to feel like I had even a cursory understanding of it, and even now I am not certain that I am there yet. Bob literally radiated joy when he was on the podium. It was simply undeniable, and, I now realize, strikingly infectious. No matter the quality of the sound created, it seemed impossible to leave one of Bob's rehearsals feeling bad. You just could not do it. The joy was too palpable.
On the other hand, I recall several times, after running a rehearsal myself, symphony members coming up to me and asking if I could not do more of the conducting as they felt Bob's was at times so hard to follow. I'm embarrassed to admit that at the time I was very flattered by this, and it served to boost my ego in ways I certainly did not and still do not deserve. But more to the point, a while ago I realized that the problem was really not Bob's conducting, it was that the symphony members who would speak to me were looking for the wrong things from him, and worse, they actually missed a priceless opportunity.
But we seem to be overwhelmed with the need to have fun. It is not remotely the same thing. If there is only one thing I would like my students to learn it is that joy and fun are not the same thing. As I have said, music is about joy.
"Joy" – noun: the emotion of great delight or happiness caused by something exceptionally good or satisfying; keen pleasure; elation.
"Fun" – noun: something that provides mirth or amusement.
Fun is far too fleeting. Plus, eventually, no matter how "gifted" you are, the fun is going to stop and you're going to have to do some real work to musically evolve. I firmly believe this is the point were so many people stop playing music. I hear it all the time. "Well, ya' know, I just kinda lost interest." Give me a break! No you didn't. I simply don't believe that. What I think happened is that you lost your sense of the pure joy music can give you. Remember the feeling you got from music when you were the age of my two year old son, Gray? That's the pure joy of music. I hope Gray is able to retain it. In any case, I also believe it's because it's just so much simpler to focus on having fun; but again, once it feels like work - and if there is no joy to counter that - well, of course you lose interest. Who wouldn't?
I know it sounds harsh - which is not my intent - but I am so convinced of this theory of "Musical Joy," that I feel it self-evidently universal. Historically, so many of us view Beethoven as an ultimate musical genius - a label he certainly deserves; but we also know he struggled - he worked, hard - to write his music at times. (By the way, I know the easy path here would be to simply point out the subtext of his 9th symphony - the "Ode to Joy" - but I am not going to take the easy path on this one.) Even if one wanted to blame that struggle on his going deaf, the fact is it required a nearly inhuman work-ethic to accomplish all he did. We know from his own letters and journals that he struggled. Constantly battling his own diminishing sense of self as his illness (check out a fantastic book called "Beethoven's Hair" for the details) took more and more control. Certainly not fun.
No. I personally believe what really kept him going was that he managed to retain that pure sense of musical joy that first captured him when he started his musical journey as a young child. I for one have never bought into the accounts that claimed Beethoven to be arrogant. I believe is was simply certain. Not of himself, of his music. Somewhere inside he always retained the joy. My proof? Listen to his music. Or better yet, play it yourself. Either way the joy is there. Even when the context is dark, as it often was with Beethoven, there is still joy.
And so I come back to the seemingly simple lesson I got from Robert Billups about joy and fun. It has nothing to do with musical style or genre. In fact, it is not exclusive to music. It applies to anything we do in life. What Bob was able to do, I am certain I could work for the rest of my life every day, and still not quite have it right. He was joyous on the podium. Always. Every time. Sure his technique was imperfect. So what? I now know real music has little if anything to do with technique. Real music is about joy. Perfect, pure joy. It was miraculous to watch him. Joyous.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Greetings from the road
Ok, so I don’t tour very much these days, but I am sitting in with a friend’s band tonight for a pre-Halloween party, and am writing this while on a short break in the set. (posting likely after the gig.)
I don’t play out nearly as much as I used to for any number of reasons, and in so many ways I miss it. On the other hand, the club scene is such a hassle, and I am sure I it is a sign of my age that I have far less patience for it than I used to. Plus I seem to grow weary of playing cover songs after a while - am forever more interested in creating something new of my own. Obviously audience opinions vary on this, but I digress.
On the other hand there is something truly joyful about playing with a group of people just for the sake of playing, for an audience that is just there to enjoy the moment with you. And that makes me think of a lesson I wish I was able to impart on my students easier: Joy and fun are not he same thing and joy is so much more satisfying in the long run.
Music is a show of joy to me. No matter the style or sound, even in the darkest of context, there is still an intrinsic element of joy. I know I need to fully explain this, but for now it’s back to the show. Anyone seen a roadie or two to carry my gear to my car later?....
I don’t play out nearly as much as I used to for any number of reasons, and in so many ways I miss it. On the other hand, the club scene is such a hassle, and I am sure I it is a sign of my age that I have far less patience for it than I used to. Plus I seem to grow weary of playing cover songs after a while - am forever more interested in creating something new of my own. Obviously audience opinions vary on this, but I digress.
On the other hand there is something truly joyful about playing with a group of people just for the sake of playing, for an audience that is just there to enjoy the moment with you. And that makes me think of a lesson I wish I was able to impart on my students easier: Joy and fun are not he same thing and joy is so much more satisfying in the long run.
Music is a show of joy to me. No matter the style or sound, even in the darkest of context, there is still an intrinsic element of joy. I know I need to fully explain this, but for now it’s back to the show. Anyone seen a roadie or two to carry my gear to my car later?....
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
All or nothing
I had a very interesting conversation with a friend of mine today about how music education is changing. My friend, Evan Tobias, is a Music Education professor at ASU. For what it is worth, as much as there are people who claim I am a "cutting edge" music educator, Evan has me beat by far.
Anyway, we were talking about how there are all these backwards perceptions of music that seem to permeate educators on all levels, and then these same people seem so shocked when they are forced to come to grips the realities of a changing musical world. Evan is far more diplomatic than I am, but I could not help but to refer to them as fundamentalists.
We talked about all kinds of permutations, but they all seemed to come down to a single overriding concept: the notion that music is not, or should not, evolve is ridiculous. Think about it. Most music education is solely focused on the music and music techniques that have long since past. That is not to say they are irrelevant - that kind of thinking actually makes me just as upset (and I think Evan too, though I do not want to speak for him - check his blog to get more specifics from him.) It's more about this prevailing sense of some music is valid and some is not. Drives me crazy.
And let's not forget that this goes both ways. I spend so much time working with my more "contemporary" students on seeing the value of "classical" music to their own work. A tip if you are ever having to do something like that. Approach it from the standpoint of the composer's motivation. What was being said with the music? That kind of insight is far more universal than you might think. Using that approach I have turned a huge number of rock oriented musicians into fairly well versed classical fans. Frankly once the door to universal musical validity is opened, it seems like a flood gate that cannot be closed. Also works the other way with more "traditional" students as well.
Evan and I spoke for a quite a bit of time about all this, and basically decided that the musical standards we have all come to know are not the problem. It's the application of those standards that is the real issue. By the way, I am fully aware of my bias on this subject - I did, in a very small way, "pioneer" a new type of music education, but still, any time we are deliberately setting limits...well, that just seems so "unmusical" to me, if I can be that cliche.
All music students should learn to view all music as valid. All of it. There should certainly be personal preferences and tastes to guide us, but the notion that some is more viable than others is very hard for me to reconcile.
I must confess that our conversation was hardly confrontational as we both hold pretty much the same views on this subject, but to that end, I think Evan's idea of a kind of consortium of like minded thinkers in this area could really help. I cannot believe he and I are the only ones that think this way.
Lots more from me on this subject, I am sure, in the future. Stay tuned.
Anyway, we were talking about how there are all these backwards perceptions of music that seem to permeate educators on all levels, and then these same people seem so shocked when they are forced to come to grips the realities of a changing musical world. Evan is far more diplomatic than I am, but I could not help but to refer to them as fundamentalists.
We talked about all kinds of permutations, but they all seemed to come down to a single overriding concept: the notion that music is not, or should not, evolve is ridiculous. Think about it. Most music education is solely focused on the music and music techniques that have long since past. That is not to say they are irrelevant - that kind of thinking actually makes me just as upset (and I think Evan too, though I do not want to speak for him - check his blog to get more specifics from him.) It's more about this prevailing sense of some music is valid and some is not. Drives me crazy.
And let's not forget that this goes both ways. I spend so much time working with my more "contemporary" students on seeing the value of "classical" music to their own work. A tip if you are ever having to do something like that. Approach it from the standpoint of the composer's motivation. What was being said with the music? That kind of insight is far more universal than you might think. Using that approach I have turned a huge number of rock oriented musicians into fairly well versed classical fans. Frankly once the door to universal musical validity is opened, it seems like a flood gate that cannot be closed. Also works the other way with more "traditional" students as well.
Evan and I spoke for a quite a bit of time about all this, and basically decided that the musical standards we have all come to know are not the problem. It's the application of those standards that is the real issue. By the way, I am fully aware of my bias on this subject - I did, in a very small way, "pioneer" a new type of music education, but still, any time we are deliberately setting limits...well, that just seems so "unmusical" to me, if I can be that cliche.
All music students should learn to view all music as valid. All of it. There should certainly be personal preferences and tastes to guide us, but the notion that some is more viable than others is very hard for me to reconcile.
I must confess that our conversation was hardly confrontational as we both hold pretty much the same views on this subject, but to that end, I think Evan's idea of a kind of consortium of like minded thinkers in this area could really help. I cannot believe he and I are the only ones that think this way.
Lots more from me on this subject, I am sure, in the future. Stay tuned.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Art versus artist
The need to reconcile the art from the artist can be tricky. Many of my students have been talking about the new Michael Jackson film, "This Is It." At the same time, MJ has become a bit of a punchline these days, which is kind of a shame. Not in relation to what he may or may not have done outside of the recording studio/off stage - the fact is, we, don't really know - but that those things tend to over shadow all the brilliant music. That is not to in any way imply his musical genius is any kind of excuse for any kind of behavior - quite the contrary; but it is sad to me that in the later years of his life he was generally equally known for the controversy surrounding him as he was for his music.
It actually makes me wonder what his motivations were in some ways. Even a cursory look at his life, particularly his childhood, makes it obvious he was not "normal." I've watched several documentaries on MJ and I always wind up disgusted by him as a person, but with a tinge of sympathy towards him. Frankly, I have no idea if he did the things he was acussed of; honestly, what tore it for me was when he held his own child out of that balcony some years ago. Who does that? At that point, regardless of all the rest, he lost me forever as far as MJ the person. To say nothing if any of the other accusations should ever prove true. Remember, all we really have in the public record is an acquittal and a lot very questionable behavior that I, for one, have a tough time thinking does not point towards him being guilty; but we just don't know as an absolute 100% certainly.
And how ironic if it should turn out he really was guilty. It would be naive to think that he was also not continually exploited and taken advantage of by all kinds of people throughout his life. Does that make it ok? If you steal from a thief, you are also a thief. Sad. There are so many victims of so many crimes here.
And it's pretty easy to knock the guy in terms of his not being a well grounded individual. Just look at what he did to himself physically. Forget the skin pigmentation part of it, just the endless plastic surgery alone is pretty off putting. You gotta wonder what was going on in his head, just generally.
But then there is the music. This glorious, brilliant, amazing, ground breaking, music. Does the music excuse the behavior? Certainly not. Absolutely not. But the real question is, does the behavior make the music irrelevant? Perhaps. And here's the thing many student have the hardest time with: there simply is no correct answer. And that might be the worst part of never really knowing what exactly happened with MJ. What exactly he did or did not do. Not because he should be vilified or apologized to - I figure that is ultimately between him and his maker, or at the very least his alleged vicitms - no, in this case the need for the truth is more about the need to fully and accurately separate the art from the artist. If he was guilty, then his musical gift is a tragedy in that is was placed in the hands of someone who simply did not derseve it. If he was innocent, then his musical gift was tragic in that it could not lift him out of his otherwise sad life.
Either way, without the full truth there can never be a correct answer. Art versus artist - it is such a tough call. For the record, I look forward to seeing the new film. I'd like to think that he was just misunderstood; but I fear he was just severely misguided. I am disgusted just at the notion of what may have happened to those kids. I'm also disgusted that we, as a society, allowed the circumstance to go unresolved. We seem to have been too complacent to find the truth, and now we may never know.
Maybe his music was a way to repent for his sins. Sounds nice, but I personally don't believe you can fully repent if you are also hiding from the truth of your life. Art versus artist. Either way, it's very sad.
It actually makes me wonder what his motivations were in some ways. Even a cursory look at his life, particularly his childhood, makes it obvious he was not "normal." I've watched several documentaries on MJ and I always wind up disgusted by him as a person, but with a tinge of sympathy towards him. Frankly, I have no idea if he did the things he was acussed of; honestly, what tore it for me was when he held his own child out of that balcony some years ago. Who does that? At that point, regardless of all the rest, he lost me forever as far as MJ the person. To say nothing if any of the other accusations should ever prove true. Remember, all we really have in the public record is an acquittal and a lot very questionable behavior that I, for one, have a tough time thinking does not point towards him being guilty; but we just don't know as an absolute 100% certainly.
And how ironic if it should turn out he really was guilty. It would be naive to think that he was also not continually exploited and taken advantage of by all kinds of people throughout his life. Does that make it ok? If you steal from a thief, you are also a thief. Sad. There are so many victims of so many crimes here.
And it's pretty easy to knock the guy in terms of his not being a well grounded individual. Just look at what he did to himself physically. Forget the skin pigmentation part of it, just the endless plastic surgery alone is pretty off putting. You gotta wonder what was going on in his head, just generally.
But then there is the music. This glorious, brilliant, amazing, ground breaking, music. Does the music excuse the behavior? Certainly not. Absolutely not. But the real question is, does the behavior make the music irrelevant? Perhaps. And here's the thing many student have the hardest time with: there simply is no correct answer. And that might be the worst part of never really knowing what exactly happened with MJ. What exactly he did or did not do. Not because he should be vilified or apologized to - I figure that is ultimately between him and his maker, or at the very least his alleged vicitms - no, in this case the need for the truth is more about the need to fully and accurately separate the art from the artist. If he was guilty, then his musical gift is a tragedy in that is was placed in the hands of someone who simply did not derseve it. If he was innocent, then his musical gift was tragic in that it could not lift him out of his otherwise sad life.
Either way, without the full truth there can never be a correct answer. Art versus artist - it is such a tough call. For the record, I look forward to seeing the new film. I'd like to think that he was just misunderstood; but I fear he was just severely misguided. I am disgusted just at the notion of what may have happened to those kids. I'm also disgusted that we, as a society, allowed the circumstance to go unresolved. We seem to have been too complacent to find the truth, and now we may never know.
Maybe his music was a way to repent for his sins. Sounds nice, but I personally don't believe you can fully repent if you are also hiding from the truth of your life. Art versus artist. Either way, it's very sad.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Guitar Troll
I get a lot of questions from students with regard to my skills playing Guitar Hero and Rock Band. I can tell you, without any hesitation, (or concern, for that matter) that I am supremely terrible at such games. They seem perplexed at such a revelation. My nieces and nephews, all of whom seem to be quite accomplished gamers, like to pretty much beat any score I can put up, and then ask me things like, "But Uncle Richard, don't you play these instruments for a living?" I usually cannot come up with much of a good replay beyond a rather meek, "yeah," and then recall how for quite some time, in the years before we had Gray, all of them were the best kind of birth control for my wife and I as we pondered whether or not we wanted to have kids any time soon. On a side note, one of the many reasons I am a fan of Gene Simmons reality show, "Family Jewels," is the episode where the members of Kiss attempt to play their own song on one of the above mentioned games, and fail miserably.
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against these games. And, to an extent they actually can teach a bit of rhythm and basic coordination; but they are not remotely like playing a real instrument. To be fair, I have never heard the manufactures claim them to be intended to teach real musical skills. They do, however, work great as a music appreciation tool. I have had several student's comment that they have since become big fans of some pretty iconic classic bands after being exposed to the music on the video games - so they cannot be all bad.
The Tuesday release of the new DJ Hero spin-off of the Rock Band/Guitar Hero games got me thinking about an idea I had with a friend of mine a while back as those games were first originally becoming popular. It's called "Guitar Troll." The idea is simple: you take the guitar controller from one of the games, but rather than play it like an instrument, you use it like a battle axe against your virtual opponent. First round is maybe Pete Townshend and you are judged on who can most creatively destroy a guitar. Then it's on to Hendrix, Kurt Cobain, etc. The details are still being worked out, but I think I at least wanna make up some t-shirts for now, if anyone wants to help promote the idea.
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against these games. And, to an extent they actually can teach a bit of rhythm and basic coordination; but they are not remotely like playing a real instrument. To be fair, I have never heard the manufactures claim them to be intended to teach real musical skills. They do, however, work great as a music appreciation tool. I have had several student's comment that they have since become big fans of some pretty iconic classic bands after being exposed to the music on the video games - so they cannot be all bad.
The Tuesday release of the new DJ Hero spin-off of the Rock Band/Guitar Hero games got me thinking about an idea I had with a friend of mine a while back as those games were first originally becoming popular. It's called "Guitar Troll." The idea is simple: you take the guitar controller from one of the games, but rather than play it like an instrument, you use it like a battle axe against your virtual opponent. First round is maybe Pete Townshend and you are judged on who can most creatively destroy a guitar. Then it's on to Hendrix, Kurt Cobain, etc. The details are still being worked out, but I think I at least wanna make up some t-shirts for now, if anyone wants to help promote the idea.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
The State of Music Education (part 3)
What information, at age 15-20 or so, could have made a difference for me in my musical growth? That's pretty much the defining element of this little experiment called the Contemporary Music and Sound program. It's actually a simple concept in retrospect, and there is something to be said for the notion that the most significant educational philosophies are generally the most obvious; but more importantly it's intuitive.
It's interesting to me that for all the attention CMAS has gotten, all the great comments received over the comprehensive and educationally valid curriculum it employs, it was really all developed with that "what would have helped me?" concept in mind.
That is not to say that I do not have a huge amount of respect for my former music teachers - in fact I do. Truth is, over the years, it was my analysis of them as it related to my own teaching skills that, in no small part, convinced me that I needed to find a new direction. It was clear that I was not up to a high enough standard.
So again I come back to luck. The CMAS concept, educationally, has been to find a way to repackage the music fundamentals of theory and technique with more modern sensibilities. I often talk to my students about what it really means to write "pop" music. Ultimately that conversation always leads us to the same place: people like Mozart, Beethoven and all the others, were writing Pop songs for their times. You cannot fault them for not using electric guitars and synths since they were not around, any more than you can fault current musicians for making use of the newer tools available to them. It seems a bit naive to think that Tchaikovsky would not have used a DAW (Digital Audio Workstation) if it had been around when he was creating his music.
And that might vey well be why the more traditional minded of my collegues are are having so much trouble. It's not that the music is old. Frankly I find that a ridiculous if not irrelevant descriptor. It's the idea that it is more valid than what is happening now.
I know how harsh that sounds, but, at least to me, and this is what I demand my students to come to terms with, either all music is valid or none of it is. This is not and should not be an area of debate. That is not to say it is all good. "Valid" and "good" are about as related as "joy" and "fun." But as usual, that is a topic for another posting.
(end part 3)
It's interesting to me that for all the attention CMAS has gotten, all the great comments received over the comprehensive and educationally valid curriculum it employs, it was really all developed with that "what would have helped me?" concept in mind.
That is not to say that I do not have a huge amount of respect for my former music teachers - in fact I do. Truth is, over the years, it was my analysis of them as it related to my own teaching skills that, in no small part, convinced me that I needed to find a new direction. It was clear that I was not up to a high enough standard.
So again I come back to luck. The CMAS concept, educationally, has been to find a way to repackage the music fundamentals of theory and technique with more modern sensibilities. I often talk to my students about what it really means to write "pop" music. Ultimately that conversation always leads us to the same place: people like Mozart, Beethoven and all the others, were writing Pop songs for their times. You cannot fault them for not using electric guitars and synths since they were not around, any more than you can fault current musicians for making use of the newer tools available to them. It seems a bit naive to think that Tchaikovsky would not have used a DAW (Digital Audio Workstation) if it had been around when he was creating his music.
And that might vey well be why the more traditional minded of my collegues are are having so much trouble. It's not that the music is old. Frankly I find that a ridiculous if not irrelevant descriptor. It's the idea that it is more valid than what is happening now.
I know how harsh that sounds, but, at least to me, and this is what I demand my students to come to terms with, either all music is valid or none of it is. This is not and should not be an area of debate. That is not to say it is all good. "Valid" and "good" are about as related as "joy" and "fun." But as usual, that is a topic for another posting.
(end part 3)
Saturday, October 24, 2009
The State of Music Education (part 2)
The irony of the whole thing is that, if I am to be totally honest, a great deal of my motivation for creating the Contemporary Music and Sound program (CMAS) at the school was purely selfish. After a decade of teaching I found myself longing for a better way to musically connect. For a number of years it had almost felt hypocritical to be pushing students in musical directions that I myself no longer felt were valid.
And I got very, VERY lucky. When I started at the school I was brought on just to be the "band guy." A position that I enjoyed but it was never part of my true musical DNA, as it is with most excellent band directors. I was always more captivated by the possibilities of full symphonies - something I would eventually bring to the school - at one point as many as two full ensembles, actually.
In any case, shortly after I arrived I was asked to take over the guitar program - a popular if not complete waste of time for the kids as there was no defined curriculum of any kind. That took a bit of time to correct, but regardless, from there it all kinda moved along logically (except for the eventual over-stretched part of things for me as I began to take on way too much.) Kids in the guitar classes started to want to know if I might be able to teach them how to write songs since I was always playing mine for them. That lead to a songwriting class, which became hugely popular, in no small part due to the live events we started to put on that soon balloned into a kind of massive production by high school standards. (We are now a fully student produced event with a 25K watt PA, 8 moving lights, hazers, full 16 channel sound and 3 camera recording, etc. - very "Spinal Tap" at this point.)
From there it transformed again as students began to ask me if I might be able to also teach them recording production techniques to go along with what they were already doing with live sound. Keep in mind I was still running the band and orchestra programs at the same time - badly, I would think, to be fair.
The real problem now though was that in order to teach that kind of thing we would need quite a bit of additional resources. I have since learned that a CMAS program is far less expensive to run per student than a band or orchestra in the long run, but the initial investment is a bit much. So here's the really lucky part: I decided to write a complete, detailed, four year curriculum outlining every conceivable facet of CMAS.
And it is a very tough curriculum. CMAS is not an "easy grade." Not even close. I have been told many people who have since reviewed it that it is almost overwhelming the amount of expertise that is required of the students. Almost, they say, but do not change it. There is still a significant amount of "standard" elements: music theory, instrumental techniques, etc. But it is the repackaging of that material into something contemporary and immediate that seems to have caught the attention of the students.
Did I mention the lucky part? I had been getting a lot of encouragement from my administration and some fellow teachers that there were some options for funding. Specifically that the Career and Technical Education folks for both the district and the state were looking for ways to better incorporate fine arts. They loved my concept and curriculum. What I thought was a somewhat lark of an idea quickly became the model for everyone. It has been an amazing ride so far. We have a huge and growing recording lab of 16 ProTools stations and tons of outboard gear and on and on. More importantly, the student interest is massive. So much so that I cannot teach them all, even on an extended contract. Don't get me wrong, it's a great problem to have, but I know full well it is not me. It is the program. The standards I wrote have also been adopted by the state, which added a huge amount of educational credibility, and we are soon to be offering college credit for the 3rd and 4th years of the program as well. Another huge credibility factor. CMAS has changed the music education paradigm. For the better. I feel very lucky to be part of it.
(end part 2)
And I got very, VERY lucky. When I started at the school I was brought on just to be the "band guy." A position that I enjoyed but it was never part of my true musical DNA, as it is with most excellent band directors. I was always more captivated by the possibilities of full symphonies - something I would eventually bring to the school - at one point as many as two full ensembles, actually.
In any case, shortly after I arrived I was asked to take over the guitar program - a popular if not complete waste of time for the kids as there was no defined curriculum of any kind. That took a bit of time to correct, but regardless, from there it all kinda moved along logically (except for the eventual over-stretched part of things for me as I began to take on way too much.) Kids in the guitar classes started to want to know if I might be able to teach them how to write songs since I was always playing mine for them. That lead to a songwriting class, which became hugely popular, in no small part due to the live events we started to put on that soon balloned into a kind of massive production by high school standards. (We are now a fully student produced event with a 25K watt PA, 8 moving lights, hazers, full 16 channel sound and 3 camera recording, etc. - very "Spinal Tap" at this point.)
From there it transformed again as students began to ask me if I might be able to also teach them recording production techniques to go along with what they were already doing with live sound. Keep in mind I was still running the band and orchestra programs at the same time - badly, I would think, to be fair.
The real problem now though was that in order to teach that kind of thing we would need quite a bit of additional resources. I have since learned that a CMAS program is far less expensive to run per student than a band or orchestra in the long run, but the initial investment is a bit much. So here's the really lucky part: I decided to write a complete, detailed, four year curriculum outlining every conceivable facet of CMAS.
And it is a very tough curriculum. CMAS is not an "easy grade." Not even close. I have been told many people who have since reviewed it that it is almost overwhelming the amount of expertise that is required of the students. Almost, they say, but do not change it. There is still a significant amount of "standard" elements: music theory, instrumental techniques, etc. But it is the repackaging of that material into something contemporary and immediate that seems to have caught the attention of the students.
Did I mention the lucky part? I had been getting a lot of encouragement from my administration and some fellow teachers that there were some options for funding. Specifically that the Career and Technical Education folks for both the district and the state were looking for ways to better incorporate fine arts. They loved my concept and curriculum. What I thought was a somewhat lark of an idea quickly became the model for everyone. It has been an amazing ride so far. We have a huge and growing recording lab of 16 ProTools stations and tons of outboard gear and on and on. More importantly, the student interest is massive. So much so that I cannot teach them all, even on an extended contract. Don't get me wrong, it's a great problem to have, but I know full well it is not me. It is the program. The standards I wrote have also been adopted by the state, which added a huge amount of educational credibility, and we are soon to be offering college credit for the 3rd and 4th years of the program as well. Another huge credibility factor. CMAS has changed the music education paradigm. For the better. I feel very lucky to be part of it.
(end part 2)
Friday, October 23, 2009
The State of Music Education (part 1)
After 12 years as a public school music educator I would hardly call myself an expert in the field. That said, I have not only noticed some trends, but I have been lucky enough to move with them and in the process, perhaps, been able to, at lease in some way, change the paradigm. At least a little.
I suppose this is really about MY state of music education; but anyway, after completing a Masters in Conducting from the U of A in Tucson - something I am still very proud of - I began a journey as a music educator that has proven to be far more life changing than I ever could have anticipated. In the most obvious aspects, I met my wife, also a teacher, along the way, which has now blossomed into our son Gray and soon Tanner, so that part of the "life change" is pretty easy to see.
But the more subtle changes have occurred over the past years as I have both struggled and, I think now in many ways, succeeded in finding a viable balance between my true musical self and my desire to help students further develop their own creative process. It sounds horribly cliche, but, perhaps sadly, I truly believe in it. Regardless of where or who, regardless of if I am actually any good at it or not, my real job is to help others find and develop their creative instincts. Whatever they go on to do later in life, the pursuit of further refined creative instincts is at the top of the list of my priorities.
So I no longer direct orchestras as often as I would like, and though I miss it, if I am being truly honest, I am not certain I was ever very good at it from a technical standpoint. Which is not to say that I did not afford my students educationally beneficial opportunities - I am certain I did. But I am acutely aware that, even with the best of intentions, I may not have always been the best at it.
And after many years of growth for both them and me, it became obvious that a change was needed. I clearly hit a wall a few years ago. I no longer felt I could musically connect with the students as effortlessly as before, and as I look back I realize that I was solely responsibly for that growing lack of connection - not the students. Perhaps I hit that wall that so many educators hit after about 5 years, I do not know. If so, at least I was in year 11 when it happened, so I can claim I beat the odds a bit, no?
In the years prior to that I had been somewhat split between the "traditional" classes of band and orchestra - which I truly loved, and the more "contemporary" classes of Songwriting and Analysis, which I also loved and found to be more internally driving. And then, a kind of miracle that is rare in education happened: I found myself in a situation to develop and pioneer a new type of music program. And out of that came what we now call "Contemporary Music and Sound."
To call CMAS successful would be a great understatement. To call me the reason for its success, would be laughable. In so many ways I am now like a guy how is handing out free money - it's not me they love, it's the money. I can take credit for the concept and the curriculum, but CMAS works on its own, and that may actually be the most significant part of my accomplishment in creating it: it does not need me to work.
(end part 1)
I suppose this is really about MY state of music education; but anyway, after completing a Masters in Conducting from the U of A in Tucson - something I am still very proud of - I began a journey as a music educator that has proven to be far more life changing than I ever could have anticipated. In the most obvious aspects, I met my wife, also a teacher, along the way, which has now blossomed into our son Gray and soon Tanner, so that part of the "life change" is pretty easy to see.
But the more subtle changes have occurred over the past years as I have both struggled and, I think now in many ways, succeeded in finding a viable balance between my true musical self and my desire to help students further develop their own creative process. It sounds horribly cliche, but, perhaps sadly, I truly believe in it. Regardless of where or who, regardless of if I am actually any good at it or not, my real job is to help others find and develop their creative instincts. Whatever they go on to do later in life, the pursuit of further refined creative instincts is at the top of the list of my priorities.
So I no longer direct orchestras as often as I would like, and though I miss it, if I am being truly honest, I am not certain I was ever very good at it from a technical standpoint. Which is not to say that I did not afford my students educationally beneficial opportunities - I am certain I did. But I am acutely aware that, even with the best of intentions, I may not have always been the best at it.
And after many years of growth for both them and me, it became obvious that a change was needed. I clearly hit a wall a few years ago. I no longer felt I could musically connect with the students as effortlessly as before, and as I look back I realize that I was solely responsibly for that growing lack of connection - not the students. Perhaps I hit that wall that so many educators hit after about 5 years, I do not know. If so, at least I was in year 11 when it happened, so I can claim I beat the odds a bit, no?
In the years prior to that I had been somewhat split between the "traditional" classes of band and orchestra - which I truly loved, and the more "contemporary" classes of Songwriting and Analysis, which I also loved and found to be more internally driving. And then, a kind of miracle that is rare in education happened: I found myself in a situation to develop and pioneer a new type of music program. And out of that came what we now call "Contemporary Music and Sound."
To call CMAS successful would be a great understatement. To call me the reason for its success, would be laughable. In so many ways I am now like a guy how is handing out free money - it's not me they love, it's the money. I can take credit for the concept and the curriculum, but CMAS works on its own, and that may actually be the most significant part of my accomplishment in creating it: it does not need me to work.
(end part 1)
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Crossfeed the what?
So for some time now I have been toying with the seemingly simple concept of being able to do accurate audio mixing with headphones as opposed to standard monitors, the usual term is called "Crossfeeding" and over time I have become a huge fan of it. It started out as just a kind of frivolity - I just thought it might be fun to see what was possible.
But in more recent times it started to become a more significant and legitimate goal. The driving force was really the birth of my first son Gray. My wife Michele has always been pretty tolerant of the studio work I do at home - in fact, she is pretty accomplished on ProTools herself - but when Gray was born a bit over two years ago, it became obvious that a change was needed if I was ever going to be able to get any work done consistently. To be fair, "Dude, "as we sometimes call him, has a pretty good sense of what works in a mix himself; but let's face it, he's still just a two year old, and daddy's work only keeps him interested for so long. Plus, I'm used to working late at night, and that train pretty much left the station once Gray was in the picture, just from a purely practical standpoint.
My other motivation was to create a viable tool for my students to do their work. (I created a Contemporary Music program a few years ago for a public high school that has proven incredibly successful - I got very lucky; more on that in another post very soon) Anyway, there is a practical matter for them both in the recording labs at the school, and also, like me, if they choose to do work at home. So between my own curiosity and needs, and those of my students, it - accurate headphone mixing - became a more pressing priority recently.
Fortunately, the concept has been around for quite some time, originally gaining some prominence, at least in theory, in the early 1970s, so there was a lot of data to cull and develop the methodology I am currently employing. I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge a very serious piece of work from John Conover dealing with the spacial distortion research of Siegfried Linkwitz. This pretty much is what allowed me to create the final, successful utility for ProTools.
There are a lot of products these days, particularly higher end headphone amps, and even headphones themselves, making use of various algorithms to create the same effect I have generated, but I find myself now somewhat addicted to the tweaking process and it has been fun to work to fully refine my own method.
So as my new Crossfeeding obsession grows - not insignificant towards my motivation is the success I am having at accurately being able to to mix with a good set f headphones - I began to formulate a way to perhaps rethink my entire creative process as well, not just the way I mix. And thus I came upon "Crossfeed the Mix." A kind of band mentality, even though it's pretty much just me for now. I have no idea where it will take me, but it has been very freeing already not to think of my creative output as me, but as "Crossfeed..." Perhaps it is just my imagination, but as I tell my students, the ability to be able to push your creative process is a powerful and wonderful thing if you handle it the right way.
As I begin work on a new CD, I plan to document my progress in these posts as well as the progress of my other creative ventures, including the music education program I mentioned above and my production company too. Certainly, some family items will make appearances as well, and to that end I figure if nothing else, years from now, should I proved disciplined to keep this up, these posts will help serve as a way for my kids (and grand kids someday) to learn more about me. Not a bad motivator that one either.
But in more recent times it started to become a more significant and legitimate goal. The driving force was really the birth of my first son Gray. My wife Michele has always been pretty tolerant of the studio work I do at home - in fact, she is pretty accomplished on ProTools herself - but when Gray was born a bit over two years ago, it became obvious that a change was needed if I was ever going to be able to get any work done consistently. To be fair, "Dude, "as we sometimes call him, has a pretty good sense of what works in a mix himself; but let's face it, he's still just a two year old, and daddy's work only keeps him interested for so long. Plus, I'm used to working late at night, and that train pretty much left the station once Gray was in the picture, just from a purely practical standpoint.
My other motivation was to create a viable tool for my students to do their work. (I created a Contemporary Music program a few years ago for a public high school that has proven incredibly successful - I got very lucky; more on that in another post very soon) Anyway, there is a practical matter for them both in the recording labs at the school, and also, like me, if they choose to do work at home. So between my own curiosity and needs, and those of my students, it - accurate headphone mixing - became a more pressing priority recently.
Fortunately, the concept has been around for quite some time, originally gaining some prominence, at least in theory, in the early 1970s, so there was a lot of data to cull and develop the methodology I am currently employing. I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge a very serious piece of work from John Conover dealing with the spacial distortion research of Siegfried Linkwitz. This pretty much is what allowed me to create the final, successful utility for ProTools.
There are a lot of products these days, particularly higher end headphone amps, and even headphones themselves, making use of various algorithms to create the same effect I have generated, but I find myself now somewhat addicted to the tweaking process and it has been fun to work to fully refine my own method.
So as my new Crossfeeding obsession grows - not insignificant towards my motivation is the success I am having at accurately being able to to mix with a good set f headphones - I began to formulate a way to perhaps rethink my entire creative process as well, not just the way I mix. And thus I came upon "Crossfeed the Mix." A kind of band mentality, even though it's pretty much just me for now. I have no idea where it will take me, but it has been very freeing already not to think of my creative output as me, but as "Crossfeed..." Perhaps it is just my imagination, but as I tell my students, the ability to be able to push your creative process is a powerful and wonderful thing if you handle it the right way.
As I begin work on a new CD, I plan to document my progress in these posts as well as the progress of my other creative ventures, including the music education program I mentioned above and my production company too. Certainly, some family items will make appearances as well, and to that end I figure if nothing else, years from now, should I proved disciplined to keep this up, these posts will help serve as a way for my kids (and grand kids someday) to learn more about me. Not a bad motivator that one either.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
A place to begin...
Is it just me, or does it seem like these days everyone is looking for a way to reinvent themselves? OK, that was way too rhetorical. Of course we are. Well certainly I am; at least to some extent anyway. I guess I have hit some kind of creative rut of sorts. I suppose it is not uncommon; and in many ways, I'm just going through a "phase" that I bet lots of people hit at one point or another. Funny thing is, no matter how much I acknowledge its commonality, it still seems really significant as I am experiencing it.
So here's the quick rundown: 38 years old. Amazing family - sorry, gotta brag: totally hot wife who puts up with me for unknown reasons, wonderful 2 year old son (and another on the way), 2 goofy but very lovable dobermans, etc. etc. I'm actually far happier than I deserve to be. I am even lucky enough to spend most of my time either creating music or helping others learn to tap into their own creative process and make their own music. And, miraculously, all the bills get paid, and we have a nice roof over our heads.
Like I said, I'm far happier than I deserve to be. But where I have run into trouble is with the various attempts at artistic (music) self-expression that have resulted in varying levels of success. In some ways I'd like to think of myself a simply very driven towards a goal. In others, I wonder if I am not just obsessive over a fantasy.
And so, my plan with this blog is to see where the middle ground of all that might be. Somewhere there is a point of synergy between my dreams and my needs and I'm hopeful that these little "rants" might help further foster a sense of viability on my journey. Should be a fun ride, regardless.
So here's the quick rundown: 38 years old. Amazing family - sorry, gotta brag: totally hot wife who puts up with me for unknown reasons, wonderful 2 year old son (and another on the way), 2 goofy but very lovable dobermans, etc. etc. I'm actually far happier than I deserve to be. I am even lucky enough to spend most of my time either creating music or helping others learn to tap into their own creative process and make their own music. And, miraculously, all the bills get paid, and we have a nice roof over our heads.
Like I said, I'm far happier than I deserve to be. But where I have run into trouble is with the various attempts at artistic (music) self-expression that have resulted in varying levels of success. In some ways I'd like to think of myself a simply very driven towards a goal. In others, I wonder if I am not just obsessive over a fantasy.
And so, my plan with this blog is to see where the middle ground of all that might be. Somewhere there is a point of synergy between my dreams and my needs and I'm hopeful that these little "rants" might help further foster a sense of viability on my journey. Should be a fun ride, regardless.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)