It's not me, Recital, it's you.

Think back to your first piano recital.  Your heart is racing, your palms are sweating, and the room is swimming slightly because the heat from the stage lights is cooking your brain.  You wander up to the piano, vaguely wondering whether God will let you into heaven if you die of humiliation.  Has the piano always been this big?   No way, this thing is enormous.  You try to swallow, which turns out to be difficult since your mouth is unexpectedly parched.  You consider high-tailing it out the side door, but instead mount the piano bench and try to find the right pedals with your feet.  Now how did that song go?  Your mind races frantically until a snippet of a melody crosses your mind and you decide to go for it.  By some miracle you manage to fumble through the Bach Minuet that you practiced,  (or at least some recognizable version of it) and retreat from the stage flooded with relief.  What bliss!  You have survived a near-death experience and won't have to do another recital for a whole year!

Meanwhile, parents and grandparents applaud enthusiastically from the audience thinking, "Isn't it wonderful to know that we're instilling our children with a love for music?"  

As a music teacher I have been confronted with this irony many times, and have ultimately begun to ask myself whether recitals accomplish what we want them to.  The case for them is simple:  1) They motivate students to practice, 2) Parents get to see the results of their financial investment, and 3) The point of music is for people to hear and enjoy it!  Having a concert give students a chance to share their music with an appreciative audience.   The first two reasons are purely pragmatic.  To me, the third reason is philosophically the most important.  If we want students to love music making, we should provide them with positive experiences that set them up for success and ultimately bring them joy.  

The trouble is, recitals don't do that.  If you were to take a survey of everyone who has ever performed in a piano or violin recital and asked them whether they enjoyed the experience, I would bet every dollar in my bank account that at least 70% of them would say no.  Even after a great performance, most students express relief and are not eager to do it again.  And not all performances are great.  Many people have horror stories of recitals that went poorly and left them feeling frustrated and embarrassed.  A small minority of people probably do enjoy themselves.  They are fortunate and few.  

A current trend in public school music programs is the Solo and Ensemble Contest (a locally organized, smaller version of the state-wide competitions.) This event invites students to play a piece for a judge and be evaluated on the quality of their performance.   In a perfect world, it gives students a chance to perform a piece of music, receive constructive feedback and compete for honors. In reality, it's a mixed bag.  Some judges are sensitive enough to balance their criticism with encouragement, while others issue harsh critiques that leave students devastated.  These types of performing can leave students with the feeling that the point of being in music is to be good at it.  If you don't mess up, it's a success!

Luckily, many students have music programs at school where they can be in a music group they enjoy - high school brings back memories of pep band, the concert choir, and chamber orchestra, and these were wonderful.  But if you're a studio piano teacher, or you work with home school families, these opportunities are not readily available.  A recital is the logical choice.

Still, I want to experiment with other things.  This year I would like to try a few low-pressure ideas that students might enjoy more.  Here are a few recommendations from friends and colleages:

• Jam Sessions: I have students who enjoy fiddle music, so getting a few people together with bass, guitar or mandolin to play along gives them an ensemble to experiment with.  

• Studio Classes: Invite a few students over to practice their songs for each other in small groups.  A small-scale alternative to large recitals.  Encourage students to practice giving both positive feedback and constructive suggestions. 

I would add snacks or pizza to either of these to liven things up and help students relax.  I'm hoping that these ideas might help students get creative with the idea of being involved in music.  Rather than creating anxiety about being a musician, it might give them enough positive experiences that they want to continue enjoying their instrument long after they leave my studio.   Fellow music fans: any ideas that you can add to my list?

The Year of the Folk Musician: Part 1

Someday I would like to write a book about discovering the different lives people have.  I would immerse myself in a livelihood that sounds interesting, and live it hard for a year.  Then pick another that sounds interesting and live it hard for another year.  Chapter one might be "The year of the beatnik poet, and another might be "The year of the sailboat captain" or maybe even "the year of the homeless drifter."  Imagine what you would learn about people, and perhaps even about yourself.

I'm taking a small step with my first adventure.  This will be the year of the folk musician.  I have classical training on the violin, and J.S. Bach will always be my first love, but after some wonderful brushes with different kinds of folk music, I decided recently that I need to try something new!  I found folk music to be comfortable, easy to listen to, and easy to understand.  It can make your heart race, and give you a curiously familiar home-like feeling all at the same time.   (For inspiration, check out Chris Smither or Nickel Creek - different styles, but wonderful music.)  My instrument of choice was going to be mandolin, because of its similarities to violin, but after some chance encounters with another instrument, I might change my mind!

If you're not familiar with mandolins, they are something like a cross between a violin and a guitar.  They have the size and tuning of a violin, but are played like a guitar with frets and a pick.  Also, there are eight strings - two E's in unison, two A's in unison, two D's and two G's.  

My adventure began last Saturday when I decided to look up some dealers in Minnesota.  The first place I visited was everything you might expect from a hole-in-the-wall folk instrument shop.  It is called The Homestead Pickin' Parlor.  You can't beat that.  It has creaky wood floors, dim lights, and old-timers sitting around strumming guitars.  I loved it instantly.  I talked shop with the manager for a while, and he helped me try out a number of different instruments.  He suggested that I play many different kinds before deciding what I liked - wise advice.  I am very familiar with most stringed instruments, but mandolins are new to me, so it took a while before I could identify what kind of sound I like the best.  

Our second stop was a place called the Podium, a newer, shinier place.  I tried a few instruments there,  and stumbled upon one that was a bit different - slightly larger, and had one lower string.  A beautiful instrument I had never even heard of before: it was the mandolin's alto cousin - the mandola.  (If you're new to stringed instruments, violas are much like violins, but can play five notes lower - mandolas are different from mandolins in the same way.)   I loved the richness of the lower notes, and if I can find an instrument in my price range, I might buy one of those instead!

Heading back to the stores this week, and looking for opportunities to jam.... stay tuned!

Here is blues guitarist Chris Smither performing "No Love Today."

I swear... Black Market Tubas.

I truly could not have made this up if I tried.  I'm not this creative.  According to NPR, there have been a recent series of tuba thefts from Los Angeles area schools recently, and authorities are blaming a the latest musical rage in the area.  The new trend is banda, or something akin to... ahm... sorry, I have to get this out with a straight face....  a Mexican polka band.  Apparently, tuba players can get more than $100 per hour playing this popular dance music, but tubas don't come cheap.  So, according to a local police officer,  if you know a guy who knows a guy who knows a guy with a tuba, you can sell it easily.

I don't even know where to begin with this.  First, I wasn't aware that tubas were commonly a part of polka or mariachi -style music groups.  (I'll chalk that one up to massive ignorance.)  Second, do that many people even PLAY the tuba?  Ok, sorry.  I'm sure they do.  

I'll just quit here, and hope that someone else gets as good of a laugh out of it as I did.  Click here to see the NPR report, and here to see the L.A.Times article.

Do the Beatles belong among the greats?

A few nights ago PBS re-aired a 2010 special feature of Paul McCartney being awarded the Gershwin Prize for Popular Song at the White House.  He was introduced by President Obama, after which he performed a number of  favorites, including Michelle (for Mrs. Obama), Eleanor Rigby, Let it Be, and of course Hey Jude.  I haven't seen a Paul McCartney performance in a while and  I knew that he was pushing 70 years old, so I couldn't help watching.  How many  70-year-old rock stars can you name that are still performing?  It's a short list.  And if you're wondering, he can still tear up the piano and do those screams in Hey Jude.   Paul McCartney has definitely still got it.  The things that made him popular in the 1960s are still working for him today: catchy tunes and what Entertainment Weekly calls "starry-eyed charm."  But is it too soon to call him classic?  President Obama's remarks said that McCartney's music has stood the test of time, but is 50 years enough time?

I surveyed some fellow music-lovers about what constitutes a classic and received some good responses. One person said, "Here is one way to distinquish a classic: is it loved by generations who were not alive when it was released?"  Put another way, will I still like the song even if it is completely different from the styles and trends that I have been socially primed to enjoy?  Another person observed, "I don't know many people who actually listen to Bob Dylan, but I haven't met many people that aren't willing to give him his place as an all-time great."  This suggests that even if someone does not care for a song, they might still be willing to call it important and definitive.

Here is a kink in the line, though:  throughout history, musicians have acquired fame for two things: writing music and performing music.  But being good at one does not necessarily make you good at the other, even if you are famous for both.  So let's not forget that starry-eyed charm. When Paul McCartney performs works by Paul McCartney, do we enjoy it because of the quality of the music, or the charisma of the performance?

If we consider how many people have produced covers of his hit single Yesterday, we might say both.  There is some disagreement about how many covers have been done, but many have referenced the Guinness Book of World Records, saying 1,600, others saying as many as 3,000.  (I tried to track down the record myself without success.)  If this record is any indication, McCartney's music seems to have taken on a life of its own, independently of his popular original performances.

Still, whether people continue playing his songs 50 or 100 years from now remains to be seen.  Johann Sebastian Bach was famous during his lifetime mostly for his organ playing.  After his death, his compositions  were largely forgotten until revived by Felix Mendelssohn in 1829.  Now he is considered to be one of the most influential and celebrated composers in western history, more than 250 years after his death, and when the landscape of popular music has changed so utterly, he would probably not recognize it.  And even now, many still find his work transcendentally beautiful.

Will the Beatles be celebrated long after they have all passed away?  They actually might be.  They have been influential in many areas of culture and style, and have even been cited by scholars for contributing to social movements that led to the fall of the iron curtain, (see also: The Beatles Revolution - an ABC spcecial that aired in 2000). 

But will their music still resonate with people 100 years from now?  Will they be playing Eleanor Rigby and A Hard Day's Night when they've cured cancer and populated the moon?  I think no one can say.  All we know is that we still like it.  But I'm hopeful.

Strad: The designer brand violin?

"A table, a chair, a bowl of fruit and a violin; what else does a man need to be happy?"

-Albert Einstein

Earlier today National Public Radio aired a segment on Stradivarius violins during All Things Considered.  (Click here to read the story at NPR)  It discusses a double-blind research study that was conducted to find out whether Stradivarius violins are noticeably better sounding than newer high-quality instruments.  Apparently, professional violinists can't reliably  tell the difference.

Can't you just see the commercials?  "Why spend more on designer violins when you can get the same great sound for less?"

This caught my attention, however, because of recent developments in the world of violin-making.  Back in November, the BBC reported about a radiologist named Steven Sirr had the idea to us a CAT scanner to observe the acoustical qualities inside stringed instruments.  He partnered up with a violin maker based in St. Paul, Minnesota named John Waddle, and used the scans of a Stradivarius violin to try to recreate the original as closely as possible.  The copies ended up sounding very similar to the original. (Click here to read the story.)  Many luthiers agree that these developments in technology could allow us to produce high quality instruments that cost a tiny fraction of what the "old Italians" typically cost.  

If you follow the findings of these articles to their natural conclusion, it could be very good news for struggling musicians who are notorious for mortgaging their houses to pay for expensive instruments.  Unfortunately, it could also be good news for aspiring con artists who make good money by convincing people that they're getting a great price for the "strad" in front of them.  

The part that I found the most fascinating was near the end of the NPR report, where the participants of the double-blind study were asked which of the violins they would most like to take home.  

When Fritz asked the players which violins they'd like to take home, almost two-thirds chose a violin that turned out to be new. She's found the same in tests with other musical instruments. "I haven't found any consistency whatsoever," she says. "Never. People don't agree. They just like different things."

In fact, the only statistically obvious trend in the choices was that one of the Stradivarius violins was the least favorite, and one of the modern instruments was slightly favored.

Musicians sometimes have a romantic attachment to the idea of playing an old instrument, seasoned by time like a good bottle of wine.  But in the end, it seems our preferences in violin sound differ as much as our preferences about ice cream flavors, and strads don't always win.

Ok, full disclosure.  If someone offered me a strad, I would still take it.

Today's song of the day, a very violiny piece: Zapateado by Sarasate, performed by Midori.

American Idol, I think we should break up.

"Love, I find, is like singing.  Everybody can do enough to satisfy themselves, though it may not impress the neighbors."    

~Zora Neale Hurston

I used to be a fan.  I was once proud to say that I had voted for Jordin Sparks and David Cook, and felt excited about being an American Idol groupie.  And it makes sense.  Who doesn't love the idea of a random schmuck off the street getting catapulted to fame because they had amazing, previously undiscovered talent?  I would cringe a bit during the show's more heartless moments, but mostly I enjoyed cheering on my singer of choice, knowing that my "special sense" about musicians would undoubtedly prove correct.   But then I read an interesting book that made me view the show entirely differently.  I'd rather not go on tirades here about how it produces cookie cutter pop stars in an industry that sells image more than originality (which it does), or about how they have devoted more and more of the show's time to ridiculing people who who can't carry a tune. (though they unapologetically do.)  I worry more about what its popularity says about our culture of music.


Listen to what Daniel J. Levitin says in the introduction to This is your Brain on Music:

"Jim Ferguson, whom I have known since high school, is now a professor of anthropology...For his doctoroal degree at Harvard, he performed fieldwork in Losotho, a small nation completely surrounded by South Africa.  There, studying and interacting with local villagers, Jim patiently earned their trust until one day he was asked to join in one of their songs.  So, typically, when asked to sing with these Sotho villagers, Jim said in a soft voice, 'I don't sing.'  ... The villagers just stared at Jim and said, 'What do you mean you don't sing?!  You talk!'   Jim told me later, 'It was as odd to them as if I told them that I couldn't walk or dance, even though I have both my legs.'  Singing and dancing were a natural activity in everyone's lives, seamlessly integrated and involving everyone."

He also said:

"Our culture, and indeed our very language, makes a distinction between a class of expert performers - the Arthur Rubinsteins, Ella Fitzgeralds, Paul McCartneys - and the rest of us.  The rest of us pay money to hear the experts entertain us.... A couple of generations ago, before television, many families would sit around and play music together for entertainment.  Nowadays there is a great emphasis on technique and skill, and whether a musician is "good enough" to play for others.  Music making has become a somewhat reserved activity in our culture, and the rest of us listen."

After reading this, it's hard for me to enjoy American Idol anymore.  My family was one that sang together around the piano, and I will always value the sense of community and pleasure that comes from things like campfire songs,  karaoke, community bands and spiritual worship.  People participate in these things because music helps us express things that are difficult to express in any other way.  I have seen countless teenagers posting on social network sites about the songs that would be included in the "soundtrack" of their lives, and I understand why.  Music says it in ways that we can't, and people love what it adds to their lives.  But the message that American Idol has spread far and wide is that if you don't sound like Kelly Clarkson, you have no business singing at all.  American Idol hopefuls that are less that qualified get laughed off the stage while those of us who knew better than to try get to critique from the safety of our over-stuffed furniture.  Contestant A can't sing in tune, contestant B has a funny nose, contestant C gets a little squeaky in the upper register, blah blah blah.

Screw it.  Sing on, America!  I'm a trained musician, and I spent countless hours in a practice room wood-shedding over Mozart, Beethoven and Bach until they were perfect to the last note, and I say screw it.  Stop being a critic!  Sing in the shower, turn up the radio and sing loud in the car.  Play the piano, even though you quit lessons when you were thirteen.  Dig out the ol' banjo and blow off the dust.  Sing on, Taylor Swift!  If your live performances aren't spliced to grammy-worthy perfection, your sisterhood of fans will love you all the more for being a real, live human being, and reminding us that we can be, too.  Sing on.

My song of the day is Nickel Creek performing Ode to a Butterfly:

Under the Influence: Part 1

"People seldom do what they believe in. They do what is convenient, then repent."
— Bob Dylan

At risk of diving in over my head, I think I will start off my blog with a series on the role music has played in social agendas.  It is an enormous subject, but has interested me for some time.  If you look back on the 20th century alone, you may be able to call to mind any number of social movements or shifts in societal behavior.  In fact, nearly every decade of the 20th century has its own defining events and social issues.  For example, it is nearly impossible to reflect on the 1960s without remembering the Civil Rights Movement, or the 1920s without the Great Gatsby and the infamous speakeasies.  What each of these movements also had was music that mirrored the philosophies and sentiments of the people who led them.  John Lennon was a famous outspoken leader of the anti-war movement during Vietnam, and composed such songs as "Imagine" and "Give Peace a Chance," advocating for peace.  Similarly, the 1920s  are known for the emergence of dance hall music like ragtime, jazz and big band.   The care-free, high energy mood of these new musical styles coincided with social behavior that earned the "Roaring Twenties" epithet.

Music is the natural byproduct of humans living in the world and interacting with each other.  So why should we be surprised when music becomes a tool to advocate for the things that we find important?  It turns out that there are countless examples of this over the centuries, and I would like to highlight them in this blog series.

Because of my sunny and optimistic disposition, I choose to start with music at its best.  In today's culture (contrary to popular belief) music is often used as a force for great good, persuading people to care about things that might otherwise go ignored.  Many musicians are now using their concerts and albums to raise awareness for important social issues, and finding it to be a surprisingly effective tool.  Music has emotional sway,  thought-provoking and poetic lyrics, and perhaps most importantly, it carries with it celebrities who hold a staggering amount of money and influence. A recent high-profile example took place after the 2010 earthquake in Haiti, when George Clooney organized a fundraiser telethon called "Hope for Haiti Now."  130 of Hollywood's A-listers join forces to answer phones while musicians performed a free concert.  It included performances by Beyonce, Justin Timberlake, Stevie Wonder, Bono, Taylor Swift, Bruce Springsteen, Alicia Keys, Coldplay, Sting, Madonna and others.  (To see highlights of the performances, click here.)

Thanks to their musical talent (and star power), Hope for Haiti Now raised $58 million, for the aid of earthquake victims and the rebuilding of Port-au-Prince. 

This kind of philanthropy is common amongst celebrities- some familiar names who are known for donating proceeds of their weath to charities are Gloria Estefan, Ricky Martin, Dolly Parton, and Barbara Streisand.  But some musicians are going one step further by incorporating the social cause directly into the lyrics of their music.  A British band called I like Trains formed their image around historical subjects, releasing their first album in 2006.  But last month a local paper called the Evesham Journal reported that their newest album, He Who Saw the Deep, was inspired by climate change, and that the proceeds of the album would be donated to a D.C. based environment advocacy group called Friends of the Earth.  Lead singer David Martin told the Evesham Journal,

"We wanted to change what we were doing and thought ‘what’s the obvious progression?’ And for us, it was to stop looking to history for inspiration and start looking to the future, to where we’re heading.  I did a lot of research into the science of climate change and [our] new record reflects different aspects of that.  I’d like to think as a band we’re all reasonably socially conscious. I’ve tried not to spell everything out, it’s a bit more cryptic and I’m not trying to preach. I’m just sort of documenting what’s happening or what could be happening."

He added,

“A lot of people I’ve spoken to think that a musician talking about this kind of issue leaves a bad taste in your mouth. I don’t agree with that. I think that if a musician is in a position where young and impressionable people are listening to them, they should grab it with both hands.”

(Click here to see the complete article online.)  It is easy for all of us to say that we value the environment and want to stop global warming, but do we make sacrifices for it?  I usually feel pretty good about myself if I carpool or recycle my soda bottles, but neither of those things cost money.  Kudos to I like Trains for using their influence to encourage social responsibility, as well as donate considerable funds to an organization that might affect change in our environmental policies.


Another example can be found in the artist that was featured in my last post's song of the day.  Brooke Fraser is a New Zealand born songwriter who had a quick rise to fame in Australia after the release of her debut album What to do with Daylight.  Her fame came from writing teen-pop love songs that one might expect from a young star - but after visiting a child she was sponsoring in Rwanda, her music underwent a change.  An interview (about 10 minutes total in length) on a Sunday morning Australian network documents her thoughts on songwriting, the Rwandan genocide, and what her role as an artist in affecting change.

Part 1:

Part 2:

Fraser uses the song Albertine to encourage us to take action against poverty, saying in the lyrics of her song,

Now that I have seen I am responsible
Faith without deeds is dead
Now that I have held you in my own arms
I will not let go till you are

 She goes on to promise Albertine

I will tell the world
I will tell them where I've been.
I will keep my word,
I will tell them, Albertine.

Fraser currently sponsors several children through World Vision, a non-profit agency that provides children around the world with nutrition, clean drinking water, health care and education.  She has also been the face of World Vision in New Zealand since 2005, and has visited many countries on their behalf.
 
And finally, today's song of the day is the music video for Brooke Fraser's song Albertine, for your viewing pleasure.

More to come!