Do you like John Williams?

John Williams may be the only living composer who is a 'household' name in America.

Jaws, Superman, Star Wars, Harry Potter, etc. etc. etc.

More people could hum you a John Williams theme on demand than a theme of Beethoven or Mozart.

Therefore, John Williams = amazing?

Let me preface the following comments by saying:

I don't hate John Williams. I've got a soft spot for "Across the Stars" from Star Wars Episode II, and a sense of nostalgia for the way most of the Star Wars soundtrack used to make me feel. The theme from Schindler's List had a big effect on me when I was first discovering 'classical' music. I appreciate that the first (and only, so far) song my son can play on the piano is the "Shark Song" (Jaws.) (Then again, a low, alternating half step isn't exactly copyright, is it?) I appreciate the fact that movies need music and that soundtracks expose people (like myself) to the world of 'contemporary' composition.

Now let me say:

I don't want to be John Williams. I don't make music for a living, nor do I really want to. I'm okay teaching music for a living, and making music because it is the music I want to make. If the day comes that the music I want to make happens to be earning me a living, great! But if I wanted to make a living off of composing music, that would mean trying to be a movie composer. And I don't want to be 'part of that world.'

One of my students who is going into movie composition asked me the other day if I like John Williams. I told him what I've told you, and went on to say that I feel like movie composers end up too often making mood music on demand.

Cue Action!

Cue Trip to Exotic Place!

Cue Love Scene!

Cue Mysterious!

Cue Light-Hearted!

Cue Oscar Winning Moment!

Cue Tragic!

Cue Its Okay but Still Serious!

Cue Triumphant Ending/Contemplative Ending!

ETC.

As a composer I feel the need to make music of my own design. That design never includes consideration of 'Mood' as its primary, or even secondary objective. I strive for original designs and original material to fill those designs. That isn't to say I can't see a time when I would do the music for a movie, or a play, or some other dramatic structure tied to a story. But I want to do it on my own terms, and not because its part of my contract to Universal Pictures to produce a score and NOW! and no, that is too complex of music for what we are going for here, don't you get it, where's my espresso?

It is a bit of a generalization, but still fair in my opinion, to say that film composers are craftsmen, molding fairly standard musical materials into recognizable and familiar shapes and forms. Sure, they often have original ideas! Sure, they are often very good at what they do! Sure, they make music that many people can relate to and like. Groundbreaking? Rarely. Decent and of good report and praiseworthy, sure!

But they are not advancing the state of music as an art. For the most part, movie music plays infinite variations on given themes, inevitably sounding somewhat like the last

Cue Scary Heartbeats!

Cue Chase Scene!

I want to be a composer who is searching for the depths of what music can really do. When I think about the materials of music, I feel like a scientist delving into the smallest knowable particles of matter, contemplating the vastness of the web of the universe, then considering how I might put it all together in my own way. I make music to make something that nobody has ever made before, to express things nobody has ever expressed, to form sound as nobody has ever formed it.

Cue Epic!

Cue Mysterious Wonder!

That just doesn't work for me.

I'm not saying that I intend to be a radical experimenter as a composer, but I do intend to be part of the musical Avant Garde - pushing the limits of my art, without forgetting that I still want to make music that speaks deeply to the soul. In fact, the way music communicates heart & mind to heart & mind is a key concept to my compositional pursuits.

Sure, I like Williams or Horner or Zimmer or Elfman - in the context of the movies. But I don't want to be them, and I don't seek out their music outside of the movies. If I want great themes I know a ton of other composers I could listen to whose music is supremely lyrical and has much more substance than

Cue Closing Credits!

Will or can there ever be another Beethoven?

I feel bad that I have been so inactive in the blogosphere/bloggernacle for so long. Being at grad school has been very busy. I've had many ideas for posts, however, and intend in the coming months to make up the backlog. Who knows...maybe somebody besides my wife will read this! Maybe, someday 100 years from now, a musicologist from Idaho will research me as part of their book "3 composers from Idaho and their music" (a century from now, titles will not be capitalized?) and they will read this post and think, "Ironic!" and "What's a bloggernacle?"

I remember reading a quote from Brahms in the controversial book 'talks with great composers' which purports to contain exact transcriptions of conversations held with 'great' composers in the late 1800s and early 1900s including Puccini, Brahms, and others. The book wasn't published until the 1940s, and many are still skeptical of its authenticity. The author's supposed reason for publishing a half a century after the interviews is that Brahms only agreed to talk to the author as a 'great' composer if the book was published fifty years after his death, and only if in that time Brahms' music had indeed proven to be truly 'great.' (perhaps Brahms was thinking of Bach's relative obscurity until the St. Matthew Passion was rediscovered in the early 1800s) (Besides a lack of situational details involving the various conversations, many people find the book suspicious in that every composer consistently pointed towards a higher (mostly Christian) power as their source of inspiration - I don't find anything wrong with that fact in itself, but I too am a bit skeptical that they all would have put it just as clearly as the author has them saying it!) I bring up this alleged comment from Brahms because it brings to the fore an issue that has haunted composers ever since one very great composer went very tragically deaf...

Ludwig van Beethoven. (1770-1827) The name is practically synonymous with "wild-haired slightly-crazy musical genius" ...or... "great composer." (Check out the wiki on him, the progression of portraits is pretty cool.) Many people don't realize that quite a few of the composers we now consider 'great' where not thought of as such in their lifetimes. Bach was primarily known as an organist (recording technology came several centuries too late to preserve that facet of his musical activity, and blogs yet a century later, thus denying us his thoughts on the subject!) Bartok was known as an ethnomusicologist. (He took advantage of new recording technology to make recordings of rapidly disappearing Eastern European folk music, ironically disappearing because of the widespread distribution of other music from around the world.) Rachmaninoff, Scriabin and Prokofiev, (all coincidently Russian, a nationality curiously well represented in the pantheon of 'great' composers) were known to the public as pianists as much as they were as composers. And in all eras before our modern one of rapid mass distribution, most composers were only known rather locally. Usually only in retrospect and reevaluation do composers come to be seen as the key figures of their generation, while other composers fall (often undeserving! (and often deservedly!)) into complete obscurity.

Bachk to Beethoven. It seems Ludwig was one of the first composers (along with Wolfgang) to begin to enjoy a truly widespread reputation in his lifetime. In fact, Beethoven could have been pretty sure that with the death of Mozart he was indisputably the greatest composer alive. Each new symphony was an event that was celebrated not only with gala concerts, but also with piano transcriptions. What's that? You see, while an orchestra may play the symphony in concert once a year, there was more market and exposure in chamber music. Putting it together, you have [great music + chamber arrangement = more music sales + more exposure for your music = more money + fame] The equivalent today would be getting your music on iTunes compared to having the sheet music sold at music stores. Yes, the later will bring in some money, but more people will download the track than will ever play it on the piano. In Ludwig's day, (still no recordings yet!) people would play chamber music much more often than they could attend a performance of an orchestra.

A popular chamber genre was the string quartet (cello, viola, and two violins) of which Beethoven left us with no less than 16 examples! In another move by him and his publisher, (the day's equivalent of a record label) he rewrote the final movement of his 13th string quartet, because it was thought the movement he had written would be too long. The rejected last movement was published on its own as 'Grosse Fuge' (Grand Fugue) and was probably one of the most complex pieces of music composed to date. It wasn't well received, being called 'repellent' and 'incomprehensible, like Chinese.' (Its reputation, however, has steadily improved since then, see the wiki on the Große Fuge) In fact, all of the late quartets have a reputation for being masterful but quite imposing and esoteric works.

We come now to the tragedy. What? THE TRAGEDY! HUH? I SAID THE TRAGEDY! OF BEETHOVEN! Yes - Beethoven was transformed into a dog that traveled to the future and was featured playing piano, wreaking playful mischief and saving the day in a moderately successful but terribly acted series of children's movies. But long before that transcendent adventure, he also went deaf. This fact, as you can imagine, had a huge effect on his music. (What a pathetic understatement!) What do you do when your career and livelihood, your very purpose of being, the thing that makes you great, depends on making sounds that you cannot hear? Fortunately, Beethoven had several things going in his favor. One, he probably could hear the music, in his head. It's a skill that most musicians learn to some extent. Two, he didn't lose his hearing overnight (Though that has happened, check out Bedrich Smetana's First String Quartet which portrays his own overnight loss of hearing.) Third, Beethoven was dealing with what is sometimes called the 'common practice' of music, that is to say, everything they teach you in the first three semesters of college music theory. This was a generally accepted system of music making (often mislabeled as the 'rules' of music, as though they were the ten commandments) which had reached its apex in the works of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven's own early works. Having gone deaf, Beethoven could still rely on this system of music to work in the expected ways, even though he couldn't hear the music played. So although he apocryphally could not hear when the orchestra had ceased playing (and had to be turned around to see the applause) he could still write music fully functionally.

If you think about it, shouldn't Beethoven's music have stayed just about as complex after losing his hearing as before? Perhaps even gone down in quality and complexity? After all, how could you progress and experiment with new ways of making music without hearing it? In fact, Beethoven's late works (such as the above mentioned string quartets or his famous Ninth Symphony) are some of his most complex, innovative and universally acclaimed works. Some of this innovation required more faculty of imagination than of hearing, as in his expansions and variations of traditional musical forms such as the sonata. But much of his late music takes common musical practice and stretches the boundaries of 'the rules' beyond anything his predecessors had tried.

Finally we come to the origin of this post. Today in composition seminar, one of my composition professors proposed the hypothetical question, "Can there ever be another Beethoven?" He went on to attribute Beethoven's greatness to the fact that Ludwig represented both the pinnacle and transcendence of the common musical practice of the time. That has set me thinking: Lacking a 'common practice' in our day, having already spent a century breaking every musical rule we know how (and making some decent music the process!) and inventing countless new systems of making music, how could another Beethoven-like figure ever arise? Or in other words, how could or even should a 21st century composer consolidate so many different and divergent musical worlds? And having done that impossible task, how could he conceivably transcend all of these worlds and make a music yet further beyond? Could a living or future composer ever even be in such a state where he could be universally acknowledged as 'the greatest composer who ever lived (so far)?'

My simple answer is yes. I do believe that there will yet be greater composers than Ludwig. In fact, I think that there already have been a number of composers far more skilled, genius and innovative than Beethoven. Truth be told, I personally have no particular love for much of Beethoven's music! But I don't deny his greatness. Rather, my issue is with the very question of 'greatness.'

Issue #1: Confusing innovation with greatness. Today's innovation is tomorrow's old school. Innovation for the sake of innovation (as far as music goes) is not what defines greatness in anybody's case, Beethoven included. As my wife hilariously put it, "Why does everyone think the way to 'fame' is breaking rules? They should think outside the box!" (I think the box in question is the one that says, "break rules!" not the one that says, "rules!") So, thinking outside the box: Perhaps something is missing in attributing Beethoven's greatness to the fact that he pushed against the music norms of his time. Most decent composers do, to some extent. It is the mediocre ones content to rehash old formulas, glad to have a reliable system of manufacturing music that doesn't depend so much on creativity and originality as on passable craftsmanship. Many film composers of today fall into this category. May they meet the fate of Beethoven's countless obscure contemporaries! I would posit that Beethoven's greatness lies rather more in his appeal. He appeals to musicians, who love to tackle the challenge of his music. He appeals to musicologists and composers, who love to unlock the genius of his musical structures. He appeals to concert audiences who would practically storm the gates if there weren't a Beethoven symphony or two (or at least a concerto!) on the schedule this season at the orchestra. He appeals to parents who beam proudly as their child hacks out the familiar notes of the melody to Fur Elise. He appealed to my younger self who would play the first movement of the so-called Moonlight Sonata anytime I felt melancholy. I would experience a musically induced catharsis that I have since come to experience from a much wider (and mostly more contemporary) range of music, including the music I now make myself.

There you have it: Appeal. Beethoven made music that was directly moving but also internally complex, all using the musical materials of his day. Now, is there any reason why there couldn't still be a composer who could make music of broad and direct appeal, but also music fitting the complexity of the age of super computers, music that draws on all the best innovations of the twentieth century to form an inexhaustible pallet of musical technique? Couldn't such a composer thereby transcend any music being written today? (In fact, if you read the little info portal under my portrait which has been up since this blog's creation, you will find that I harbor a not-so-secret goal to strive to make such music myself!)

Issue #2: Confusing innovation (and complexity!) with greatness. Beethoven can probably be blamed with setting off a sort of diagnosable 'composer complex' that has afflicted composers ever since. Namely, the idea that in order to be a great composer, you have to be some sort of meta-genius. You've got to advance the musical language of the day, show an inexhaustible turn of creativity and originality in musical materials and structures, and only look back to the past by way of saying, "I can outdo you!" This complex drives composers into a certain peculiar world-view in which it becomes easy to forget that the reason that the average person likes Beethoven isn't necessarily any of these things. Now, I don't mean to get down on my direct musical fathers, the Lutoslawski-s, Messiaen-s, Rautavaara-s, Takemitsu-s, Norgard-s or Schnittke-s of the last fifty years. For the most part it takes a pretty liberal concert audience to swallow their music, and probably best taken with a spoonful of Beethoven. Nor do I mean to belittle my direct musical grandfathers, the Copland-s, Stravinsky-s, Webern-s or Shostakovitch-s whose music has gained a little more acceptance (After all, they did start writing almost a century ago, for the most part!) but is nonetheless still as cutting edge as most concert goers ever care to stomach. I do believe that all of these composers made music of real appeal and undeniably ingenious design. There have been a number of composers over the last century who were brilliant 'innovators' with the materials of music. In fact, any more, a composer is less part of a definable style of composition (such as 'Baroque' 'Romantic' or 'Impressionistic') and is required to be more unique (again stemming from the Beethoven complex). Now, let's use the word complex in a different way: in terms of density and sophistication of musical structures and materials.

The very nature of this sort of world-view of music, that everything should be moving forward all the time beyond, beyond, beyond! begins to create a rift of appeal. For example, while the complex music of composers heavily involved in various manifestations of serial procedures (read: atonal music) may appeal to somebody, it is hard to think to whom, outside of other composers and those few dedicated to studying and performing such music. Milton Babbitt, one such composer who recently passed away, provocatively approached this subject in his essay, "who cares if you listen?" in which he likens advanced modern music to other disciplines such as physics. The average person, he says, would get little out of studying the doctoral or professional publications of modern physicists. Likewise, Babbitt suggests, a serial composer's musical pursuits are more involved in the advancement of the state of the art of music as a whole, and as such aren't even intended for the general public.

"WAIT! WHAT?" cries a deep down part of most people who have ever listened to music and really loved it. How can you say that there would be a valid music that nobody likes! What's the point? Well, the point is appeal. There are people out there who 'get a kick' out of Babbitt. Good thing for recording technology: now they have access not only to his obscure music but also to what may be the only performances there will ever be of some of it! There are even more people out there who enjoy the music of Boulez, or Ferneyhough, two living composers whose music is exceedingly complex (almost, you might say, excessively!) Now, I don't wish to draw a line in the sand about the validity of complex, innovative music. I merely wish to point out that by solely pursuing the end of 'latest, greatest' 'most innovative' and 'most complex', composers have naturally isolated many people, even many of those who love and go so far as to financially support the institutions of music, as well as many of those who have dedicated their lives to bringing to life the music of composers - classical musicians. Quite often, these musicians are content to play the music of the 'masters' because they followed 'the rules' and made music that is more immediately comprehensible (and is more likely to fill a concert hall!) It comes back to appeal. If we were to be honest with ourselves, even the 'great' composers of history - even Beethoven! - never really had truly universal adoration. If you think about it today, how many people could name more than a couple of pieces by Beethoven? How many have heard all nine of his symphonies or all 16 of his string quartets? (I don't think I even have!) Or even every movement of the Moonlight Sonata or Fifth Symphony? In reality, Beethoven's greatness has been distilled to our times in the form of "Beethoven's Greatest Hits." The average Johann on the street in his day would have had as little clue about Beethoven as the average Joe today. The truth is, Beethoven may be universally acclaimed as one of the greatest of composers, but to most people, what does that mean? That once a year they get "Ode to Joy" stuck in their heads for an hour after it was played in a TV commercial? This leads us to:

Issue #3: Confusing greatness. Perhaps the true underlying issue is that 'greatness', like 'appeal' is an extraordinarily relative term, especially with billions alive today, each with some kind of opinion about music. One side of the misunderstanding of the term is exactly what Brahms supposedly put his finger on: that greatness, as a concept applied to composers, only really works when you're dead. I mean, how can you really know how significant a person is to artistic history when they are standing in front of you with their old, bald head and rumpled jacket? It is much better to be gloriously dead for centuries, your music reaching out to millions, your deafness not a handicap but just another marvelous fact of your fabled life! Or, to take a more modern example: early in the twentieth century if you would have taken a poll of concert goers to see whose music they thought would define the twentieth century and still be around a hundred years from then, they would have been just as likely to guess correctly, IE: Stravinsky, Strauss, Ravel, Sibelius; as to be wrong: Myaskovsky, Kreisler, Ornstein or Antheil. (See the wiki for Myaskovsky, a Russian-Soviet composer who deserves to rank up there at least with Sibelius as a great post-romantic symphonist!) So it is that perhaps today we stand as much chance of predicting greatness as not.

Our culture doesn't help, either. This would be the other side of misunderstanding greatness. Our media driven music industry has one main focus: make money by getting artists famous. This automatically rules out modern 'classical' music, as it isn't lucrative. This financial end is accomplished in two main ways: One, manufacture the image of a star and then they will be seen as one (An already classic and imitated example: Miley Cyrus as Hannah Montana, cf: David Bowie's The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars) irregardless of their musical prowess, or second, 'discover' talent and show the public how the new star has risen from their very own ranks (Such as Susan Boyle, who, though not a terrible singer, is not better than your average college educated vocal major.) So it is that in this musical [business] culture, being 'great' either means: somebody says they are great/wait, no they're not/yes they are/why is everybody talking about them/who cares? Everybody's talking about them! (a concept embodied and lived by Lady Gaga as revealed in the very title of her album Fame Monster) OR being great means: you rose about the crowd! Way to go!

I've already hinted at the ironic thing about this second cultural view of greatness. Greatness must necessarily be perceived in contrast to things which are not great. But the mistake is to say, "They have risen above mediocre! I see GENIUS! Aren't they amazing?" For example, last year there was a viral YouTube video of a young boy playing piano and singing a cover of Lady Gaga's Paparazzi. To say that it is amazing and wonderful to see this performance by a boy so young is an example of defining greatness as merely rising above the average: 'most kids his age can't do that, so therefore this boy is amazing.' If the same YouTube viewers would look a little harder, they could easily find any number of amazing performances of some of the world's greatest music by some of the world's greatest performers. But those videos, of course, never go viral. That's the irony - most people can respect genius, if they happen upon it. But they really don't care if they have too much to do with it. They want 'rise-above-ness', which is more immediately comprehensible and to which they can more easily relate. Who wants to watch a video of a performer play some stuffy, long, boring piece (no matter how sensitively or virtuosically ) when you could spend a few minutes watching a kid's truncated piano version of a song you know from the radio. 'Hey! That's the song from the radio, he's pretty good, isn't he, and so young too!' Somehow this gets back to Babbitt: everybody knows who Einstein is, but few really know anything about him except that he was a genius and had wild hair and stuck out his tongue in a picture which makes him, like, totally cool, I mean, like for a genius, you know?

The further irony is that there are possibly many composers breathing air right this second who are every bit as proficient and creative with the materials of music as Beethoven ever was. And it is not too early to say that in the last century there have been composers who were just as 'great' as if not greater than the old boy.

So in summation we have:

Everybody: "Beethoven is great!"

Philosophical Skeptics (who don't doubt Beethoven's greatness but must ask): "Says who?"

Everybody (exasperated): "Says everyone!"

History (embodied as a woman standing on a mountain of mankind's achievements): "Says the fact he's dead and has been for a long time!"

Musicologists and Composers: "Let his music speak for itself! See how he pushed against the norms of his time and wrote music of such depth of structure and creativity, thereby both culminating the Classical period of music and ushering in the Romantic Era!"

Mr. Joe Blackwell (who with his wife has held season tickets to the Utah Symphony for 40 years): "Well, I don't know about all that, but I do like a good rendition of a Beethoven Symphony. Powerful stuff!"

Mrs. Mary Blackwell: "Yes! Makes me cry every time I hear that Allegretto from the Seventh Symphony!"

A Chorus of Loyal Concert Goers: "Amen! For verily none of this modern music holdeth a candle to a single note of the Master! Amen!"

A Rare Relatively Musically Liberal Musician: "Well, hold on folks, you're forgetting that Brahms lived to the 1890s, Rachmaninoff to the 1940s, and Vaughn Williams to the 1950s! Aren't they also among your favorites? And their lifetimes nearly overlap yours!"

Chorus of LCGs with the Blackwells as soloists: "Oh! Yes! But of course their music is only successful insomuch as they did follow in the footsteps of the Master!"

RRML Musician joined by a Rare Relatively Liberal Music Lover (who owns quite a large collection of recordings): "Also, do not forget the music of the movies! Is it not moving? Is it not often dissonant and modern?"

Chorus and Blackwells: "Yes! But behold how in context the ear forgives these indiscretions!"

'Contemporary'/'Modern'/'Serious'/'Non-Vernacular'/'Art Music' Composers: "Indiscretions? Those movie composers are just hacks! They're pathetic, pale imitators! They wouldn't know what to do with modern musical techniques to save their lives!"

Musicologists, Blackwells, Chorus of LCGs, RRML Musician & Music Lover, with History Embodied as prominent soloist: "Who in the world are you?"

C/M/S/NV/AM Composers: "We carry the torch of Beethoven! We continue in his path of innovation and complexity! You might even find among our ranks a modern Beethoven! It doesn't matter that you haven't heard our music - just because you don't get it doesn't mean it isn't great! We are changing the art of music as you know it!"

A Great Multitude of the Billions of other People Comprising Everyone Except for Those Who Have Already Spoken Above (entering & filling the stage and aisles...and world): "Like a modern Beethoven, huh? Wild stuff! Say - have you seen the one where Greyson Chance sings Paparazzi? You'd like it since you're musical and stuff - he's good, for such a young age!"

Timothy Blackwell, grandson of the Blackwells (entering stage right and sitting at the piano, making several false starts on Fur Elise.): Look what I can do!

The Blackwells (with tears): "Oh, we love this one!"

Everyone: "Yes, isn't Beethoven great?"

Philosophical Skeptics (sotto voce as the crowd exits in every direction): "What is greatness?"

My dear Skeptics, its all relevant, and it all has to do with appeal.

Spokesman for Philosophical Skeptics: "But surely you just heard the cry as the world in unison declared Beethoven's greatness? Couldn't it be argued that he therefore has universal appeal?"

Are you actually arguing that point or are you just saying that so that you can later poke a philosophical puncture in that position?

S for P Skeptics: "Well called, and nice alliteration. Let us do take it for the sake of argument that Beethoven does have universal appeal. Let us then ask the question:"

All Philosophical Skeptics: "Will or can there ever be another Beethoven?"

I must hold out that appeal is relevant, meaning things to different people. I will concede 'universal' appeal if we mean that everyone can find at least something great in Beethoven's music. So, if by 'another Beethoven' you mean a genius composer who suffered tragically but nonetheless managed to create art of lasting and universal (for the sake of argument) appeal - yes, there could be another. Except, maybe he could do without the suffering part...

In fact, dear Skeptics, and dear everyone, consider this: That Beethoven was indeed a meta-genius (beyond genius), and that any composer wanting to surpass him would have to be a meta-meta-genius. (Poor composers with their Beethoven complexes!)

I support this position in my final argument:

Not only was Beethoven a certifiable genius, but he also exhibited something beyond genius which has transformed him from mere crazed genius to a figure of epochal relevance. Style? Good PR? Iconic hair? Perhaps the answer lies here: The youngest children and most musically illiterate people would recognize and respond to the music of the first movement of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, even not knowing the title. "Bum bum bum BUM!" A musician could go on at length about how that single musical idea ties the piece together. A musicologist could go on for the length of a book about the cyclical nature of the symphony. Shostakovich, a century and a half later, would quote that musical motif in the cadenza of the Passacaglia of his Violin Concerto No. 1. Countless composers have taken inspiration in the passion of the music, the layering of the musical lines, the thematically compact musical structure. To each of these people, Beethoven's Fifth means something different, and most (if not all, you Skeptics!) would still readily admit that it is truly great music.

So can there be another Beethoven? Another composer who makes music which appeals to and is acclaimed by literally (nearly) absolutely (almost) everyone? From the most hard-core serial composer to the kid on iTunes searching for his identity through music? From conservative concert goers to fans of punk music? From Africa to Alaska? From children to adults? Music of satisfying and ingenious complexity, innovative with and yet cumulative of musical materials, but still music with direct emotional appeal?

Tall order!

Timothy Blackwell (quoting scripture in a sing song voice in a rhythm of Bum bum bum BUM): "With God all THINGS are pos-si-BULL!"

From the mouth of babes.

State of the Art Address

My friends, Americans and fellow music lovers. I address you tonight on the state of our art, specifically popular music. 

I hope nothing on this blog that I have written has made anyone think I don't like a good catchy and well arranged song. However, some sort of morbid curiosity has led me over the last couple months to turn on the radio for the first time since high school to hear the 'hits' and I have to agree with the statements of several living prophets that our times are as wicked as Sodom and Gomorrah. Nowhere is this more evident than in the our music, which seems to have hit an all time low. No longer are there lone artists that have a naughty streak. It almost seems to be the rule to be explicit, immodest, erotic or use language, which is less and less edited out on the radio. In fact, one of the only benign songs I can think of on the pop radio is Owl City's much overplayed Fireflies.

Recently young pop-diva Miley Cyrus (copyright Disney Star-makers Inc.) was heavily criticized for a performance where she danced on an ice-cream cart, holding onto a pole, reportedly for support. Critics thought she was 'pole dancing.' Poor girl. Maybe it is because she has a brand and an image to uphold to all of the 13 year olds who think she is the greatest thing EVER. Whether or not her dance act was really suggestive, I find it very telling that she was criticized at all. There are numerous other acts much more worthy of being decried than hers. As one blogger pointed out, the bad music of our times is no longer just rap or heavy metal. "The culprit this time is top 40 pop music."

The Killers (what a band name!) have a lyric in their hit Mr. Brightside:

"But she's touching his chest now,

He takes off her dress now..."

They only get (dis-)honorable mention for that.

The band 3OH!3 (um? What's with that?) comes up with the even more offensive lyrics in their hit Don't Trust Me:

"I said shush girl, shut your lips,

do the Hellen Keller and talk with your hips."

That is beside using the F-word and repeating over and over the line "Don't trust a ho."

Ouch. That is sickening. How about this sad lyric from David Guetta. Actually, never mind. I just looked up the lyrics and they are much too offensive, the title even swears in it! The radio edit must be editing out every other word. In the build up to the chorus, he says, "I'm trying to find the words to describe this girl without being disrespectful.." If there is a grade lower than F- for effort, he would get it. The rest of the song manages to say some of the most disrespectful things you could say about/call women.

Yuck.

The sad thing is that this is just the boys. The girls are degrading themselves even more.

Ke$ha (Yes the dollar sign makes it sound cool when you say it. Try it... Key-chaching-sha?) has several absolutely dumb songs they won't stop playing. In Tic Toc she shares with us how 'cool' it is to party like a diva all night every night, getting drunk, wild, and promiscuous at the club. The video takes the already gross lyrics and adds the offense of glorifying her contempt and disrespect for her family. Her other hit song Blah Blah Blah (really?) basically is saying, "If you want some action like I do in the back of my car you've got to shut up." One blogger lamented that his ten year old daughter liked Kedollersignsha. I would lament that anybody does. The difference between her 'full of attitude' verses (talk-singing) and auto-tuned chorus lines makes you wonder if she can even sing at all!

Katy Perry has been around for a year or so but a few of her often played song titles will suffice to show how crude her very mainstream pop sound is: I Kissed a Girl (and I liked it), Ur So Gay, or (That's what you get for) Waking Up in Vegas.

The old bad girls don't want to be left out either and are still getting heavy radio play.

Madonna, whose career took a major hit in the early nineties when she released the album Erotica and related graphic promotional material, (which, by the way, may have helped pave the way to mainstream-itize this whole trend I'm talking about) has come out with the song Revolver:

"My love's a revolver

My sex is a killer

Do you wanna die happy?"

The Beatles album Revolver must be rolling in its grave. The 51 year old Madonna out-explicits herself and nobody complains today. (I love the Beatles, but they are hardly blameless. Their song Why Don't We Do It In The Road pretty much has no other lyrics or different interpretation to its subject matter.)

Britney Spears' latest hit 3 is so popular that my little sister's cheer squad used part of it for their dance routine, and this in one of the most conservative cities in the nation. The song? Its about the very Sodom and Gomorrah sin of multiple partners in fornication. Not just subtly about that either, but just about as plain as you can make it. Nobody seems to have a complaint against her for dancing with a horizontal pole in the video (Poor Miss Cyrus.) I guess Britney said it best when she sings, edited from the video version, but heard on the radio:

"Livin' in sin is the new thing"

That, at least, is what all the radio stations that play current (non country) music in my area are promoting. In the movie Josie and the Pussycats there is an evil plot to sell products through subliminal messages in the music. That is so 2001. Why not just make the placement catchy, the packaging slick and sexy, and nobody seems to care. But its not products we're placing here, its lifestyle and beliefs.

That brings us to the winner for all-around mind-numbing pop grossness.

Meet Lady Gaga. Half of what she sings is nonsense syllables repeated suggestively. The other half is too offensive to repeat. Half of the songs they play on the radio are hers. Half of the clothes she wears aren't there. Half of her music describes abusive, dirty relationships with men, the other half says its absolutely glamorous to love girls...especially if you are one. But everybody seems to agree that Lady Gaga is artistic, talented, fashionable, amazing, and really 'pushing the boundaries of art-pop music.' It is incredibly hard to find people criticizing anything she does. The title of her album, Fame Monster, unabashedly proclaims her obviously successful (and shameful) music/business philosophy: Do whatever it takes to be famous. A few days ago she released a ten minute music video extravaganza for her song Telephone ("Eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh...Stop telephonin' me!") which has already received more than 14 million views on YouTube as of this writing. The video reportedly contains scenes that should be at least rated R, including dancing firmly in the 'striptease' genre, glamorized violence and gore, girl on girl gross making out, all of which is supposed to be very groundbreaking and fashionable.

It makes me sick. I had to tell somebody. Nobody is saying anything! It's as if the world tuned in and ... I read these pretty lame sci-books when I was young that creeped me out about 'the invasion of the tripods' in which alien tripod things invaded the world by first getting everyone to watch their brainwashing tripod kids TV show. Then they put mind control helmets on everyone and made humans their slaves. Obviously in real life 2010 the Devil (as introduced in the Rolling Stones song Sympathy for the Devil) doesn't need subliminal messages or mind control helmets. He has simply and successfully subverted the art of music and the technology of its dissemination. (wait...tr-iPods...yikes!) I would frankly be embarrassed for this nation if aliens tuned into its entertainment right now.

A common and curious criticism of would-be music critics like myself goes like this:

"I'd like to see you do any better. I don't see you writing music and changing the world."

Well, people of America, I intend to. I don't want this tsunami of tsin to go unchecked. Somebody has to stand up to it. To that I end I close this blog by officially announcing to all five of my faithful readers the project that has occupied my composition efforts since December.

I am currently working on an album, tentatively titled, "Songs for Qait: Stars Ascendant" which will address my views of love and its healthy, righteous exercise and development. My effort will be to make the songs both as catchy and as artistic as possible. Coming soon you will hear a demo version of the opening song "The Night is Young" and you will hear much more about this project as it develops. I have been waiting to formally start telling people about it until I was sure that I was serious about it and had a good start. Now there will be lots more to say and I will very much appreciate your contributions and insights into making this successful.

I invite all people everywhere, musicians especially, to realize the power of music and the effect it has on our culture and people. We have to make sure that there is an alternative to filth.

Sculpture

I have never really been a big fan of sculpture. My biggest experience with it has been of the tacky sorts of things that you find in an antique junk store. The notable exception of my growing up was seeing some of the rather heroic statues around Temple Square in Salt Lake City. I got to see a variety of oldish greek-ish sculptures at the Hermitage in St. Petersburg, but they didn't do anything for me except make me want to cover them up, maybe with a large fig leaf.

An interesting side-effect of my recent trip to Pittsburgh to interview with a couple grad schools was a sudden interest in the art of sculpture. In the city I saw many works in this 'public art' form. I am not interested in making sculptures, (I have no talent or inclination towards the visual arts) but in the concept and impact of this unique art form. It appeals to me on several levels. For one, there is an emphasis on the human form and all it can portray. There is something deep and divine in molding human images. The lack of coloring focuses attention on other details such as pose and expression. Best of all, to be experienced as an art, sculpture can be placed almost anywhere.

So it was I was walking rather aimlessly through downtown Pittsburgh, enjoying my first experience of skyscrapers, when I passed a church that had a sculpture in front of it, right by the sidewalk. It turned out to be Paul Granlund's "Resurrection" - I was captivated.
Unfortunately it was night time, so my picture of it didn't turn out very well. It portrays a man rising from an abstract block structure that seems as though it has opened to release him. I don't know whether this is meant to portray Christ's resurrection or just any man on the day of resurrection, but the image is nonetheless powerful. The inscription at the base of the stature quotes John 5 - "For the hour is coming, when all that are in the tomb will hear his voice and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life." You really do get the impression that the figure is floating, rising above the now powerless grave that has held him.

Though his head is hanging down, this seems to be only a temporary look down in wonder at the restoration of his body and its freedom from death. Somehow to me the figure seems about to lift his head upwards in supreme triumph over the last enemy, towards the voice that has called him forth. His arms are extended in a manner reminiscent of suffering on the cross, but hinting that they too will soon be raised in an act of praise. It was a neat experience to have suddenly, walking down the street.

Finding this sculpture and reviewing other works of art by this same sculptor (Paul T. Granlund) reminded me of a statue I had seen in a photograph last summer while researching (as part of my regular random research on Wikipedia (RRROW)) the Chernobyl disaster. I have been unable to discover who the sculptor is, but the sculpture itself is in a cemetery in Moscow, where some of the firefighters are buried who died as a result of attempting to contain the failed nuclear reactor at Chernobyl, Ukraine. This is really one of the most powerful images I have ever seen as a memorial.

Here again the figure of a man is contrasted with a shape, this time the not so abstract outline of a nuclear mushroom cloud. His legs appear to be melting and his arms are flung out against the explosion. This image suggests several things to my mind. The obvious interpretation is the struggle of the firefighters, sent in to face the world's worst nuclear accident without proper equipment or information. "We didn't know it was the reactor," said one of the first firefighters to arrive on the scene of the 'fire,' without gear to detect or protect from radiation, "no one had told us." Two men went up onto the roof of the reactor to put out the fire, they were never seen again. Over the next weeks thousands more people were exposed to lethal and life-threatening doses of radiation in an attempt to contain the disaster. To this end the statue portrays a man perhaps futilely throwing out his arms in defiance of a power that is already consuming him. The tragedy is awful.

I come from the school of thought, however, that a work of art cannot help but also be a product of its time, no matter the intent of the artist. This is especially true of works out of Soviet Union, such as the subversive or dual meanings in the compositions of Shostakovitch, Gubaidulina, Part, or Schnittke. I think much of Soviet propaganda art is in fairly poor taste -while in Russia I saw many memorials to WW II that were literally trash, such as the abstract sculpture shown above, made out of old artillery cannons jumbled together. However, I see something else in this sculpture from the end of the soviet regime, something honest and from the heart of nations about to be free - the symbol of a man fighting overwhelming powers of darkness and oppression. The nuclear cloud becomes a symbol of mankind's worst side, which the people of the Soviet Union had seen for decades. This statue conveys a similar sentiment as Winston Churchill's famous 'fight on the beaches' speech: "We shall never surrender." I pray that the people of Russia and other former soviet countries will never give up the freedoms which have come after such suffering.

Finally, the statue could even be a portrayal of a Christ figure, a statement that even all the evils of the modern world were paid for in that moment of infinite suffering in Gethsemane and on Calvary, that no power on earth or hell could destroy/consume the divine sacrifice. In this way, these two statues become paired together for me, Suffering and Resurrection.

I recently reread one of the books that has had a measured impact on my artistic views, "The Fountainhead." While I do not agree with a large part of Ayn Rand's philosophy, I can't help but enjoy the portrayal of man, "not as he is but as he might be" which, ironically enough, resounds with me more from a religious point of view than philosophical. The following quote from The Fountainhead describes the work of fictional sculptor Steven Mallory:

"...your figures are not what men are, but what men could be - and should be...your figures are the heroic in man."

The book in general is about uncompromising architect Howard Roark, who goes so far as to work in a quarry rather than design buildings in someone else's style, or blow up a building that is not being built as he designed it. My wife Qait teased me when I even hinted that my new job at a potato factory was a similar outlet. Anyways, the events surrounding the young sculptor are some of the most meaningful to me in the whole book. Unlike Roark, Mallory has struggled to keep his ideals and stooped to making mass-produced sculptures of ugly-cute little babies. His encounter with Roark is the first time that he finds someone who really understands him, and it is the first and one of the only times when Roark actually shows what we would call empathy. "...this boy was a comrade-in-arms, hurt in battle, and Roark stood over him, feeling a strange new thing, a desire to lift him in his arms and carry him to safety..."

Is it okay for this blog entry to come full circle from the topic of sculpture to me saying that I really hope that in grad school I can find a mentor or friend who can help make me the composer that I 'could be - and should be?' In this way a teacher is a sculptor, following in the footsteps of that great Creator, Himself a teacher who is a sculptor using that most difficult and rewarding of of malleable substances, human souls, to bring out the best, the 'heroic' and divine in man.

Have any of you ever found a sculpture that really spoke to you? I'd love to hear about it.

Discovering and Creating the Music of Today

During the application process for various colleges, I had to write several 'statements of purpose' or intent. The following (with the exception of the first paragraph) is culled from several of those statements and gives a background of what got me into music and hopefully conveys something of my views and goals as a composer.

As a lover of music, I know the unparalleled joy that can come from a good piece of music. For me, a great piece of music is one that opens up new depths of thought and beauty, and allows the listener to either leave the moment they are in, or enjoy it fully. Years ago, sitting at the piano, I discovered that I too could create music, not just consume. By the age of 17 I knew that I had to make music, that it was part of who I am. I have spent my time since cultivating both that destiny and talent. My degree in jazz studies helped me realize further the potential that making music can have to change lives, bring people together, or just let everyone have a good, quality time. My dad used to ask me what I thought about when I didn't have anything to think about. Music. Musical form. How movements in a piece I will write might relate together. How to improve a piece I am working on. Although my degree is not in composing, (BYU-I does not offer one) my passion has been composing and my activities during my undergraduate studies have proved that again and again. I founded the Student Composers Society at BYU-I, pursued compositional lessons (from my own pocket and competing with my jazz and other courses) and have relentlessly improved my composing talents by composing almost constantly. Since I began college I have spent my free time & money researching composing and composers. I've felt an affinity with composers making music today or recently. I long to join to their ranks.

In my first semester of college I heard a work by a living composer being performed on the radio. My first thought was: what are they doing to that violin? Followed by: I like it. I was enthralled and baffled. It was unlike anything I'd ever heard. I began a studious search to find out how the gap was bridged between the music of composers covered in textbooks and music being composed today. I believed that if the music of one, two or three centuries ago could speak so powerfully, the music of today could be even more significant.

Who has been composing in the last 50 years? What are the trends and techniques being used? How are these composers supporting themselves professionally? What are their compositional philosophies? Why isn't this music reaching more people? What is it about this music that moves me so deeply? I sought the answers to these questions and was exposed to dozens of composers. As I listened to their music, there were many gratifying moments that presented more beautiful and wonderful sounds than I had known possible.

The more I searched, the more I realized that if I wanted to hear perfectly pertinent music I would have to create it. I began composing in earnest, taking lessons and talking to other students interested in composing. My research on modern composers doubled as a course in modern musical language and techniques.

On February 28th, 2008, I first saw my name as composer on the program and heard my work performed - a hymn and a movement for string quartet (now revised and in my portfolio as Zerkalo). It is hard to describe the feeling of hearing my own compositions performed. I suppose it is rather like hearing your child perform for the first time at a piano recital. I was nervous, yes, but also elated at each sound. Here was the complete cycle of music being played out: the composer has just finished the work. The performers have rehearsed and are now on stage sharing their talents. For the first time, an audience hears the work. What a thrill to share with them this pure and undiluted musical experience! As I spoke with people afterwards, I realized the concert had had as much impact on them as it had on me. I felt inspired and filled with a desire to create and share more music.

To hear living music impressed on me the importance of the music of today - music that expresses, exalts and exemplifies the tenor of our times. As important as the music of the past is, it is this living music that holds a mirror up to our times and has the most potential to be an instrument of social change.

From hearing a new work on the radio to the first performance of my own works to the present, my course has become increasingly clear - I feel it is my duty as a composer to enrich our culture, ensuring its progress by composing exquisitely expressive music that will become an important part of people’s lives. I want my music to reach people in a variety of ways - whether on their iPods, at thought provoking concerts, during reverent religious works, or in lighter but not less well-crafted music influenced by jazz and popular idioms. In all the music I write I want there to be a depth of thought and form - music that satisfies both the ears and mind. In order to be so versatile and effective as a composer - to 'wax poetic' with the language of music - I want to master a vast palette of musical means from all styles and periods. I will also need practical training as a professional composer to thrive in the changing music industry.

This is why I am pursuing graduate studies in composition.

Beautiful Truths tonight live with guest star Hey! It's All Music!

THE OPENING ACT of of tonight's blog is "Hey! Its All Music!"

I AM A COMPOSER. To many this creates an instant image of either a wig wearing maniac or John Williams. Not so much the actual image of John Williams, just the idea of him as one of two living composers that are household-ish names. I like the term composer but to me it expresses a number of things besides "a maker of stuffy old music" or "movie music guy." A composer is a musical poet/artist, crafting soundscapes instead of words or paint. A composer can be (as I want to be) a songwriter or a psalmist, though not all songwriters or psalmists are composers. A composer can do movies or ballets or jazz symphonies or song cycles or even albums or ring tones. Critics impose any number of appellations to a composer's music, "minimalist" "new wave" "emo" "Quintessentially Modern American" etc. The important thing to me is that I am making music. As I have repeatedly stated, I want to draw on a vast palette of music means/styles/textures to achieve my expressive ends. No matter what kind of music those means are employed to create, "Hey, its all music!"

SO IT IS that I hope to be found writing songs that could be found on the radio, concertos that receive standing ovations in the concert halls, reverent works that invite the Holy Spirit to a religious service, or even rousing works that glorify the freedoms and principles on which America is founded. I want to make music for the people, music that is meant to be listened to by people who need music for specific and important functions in their lives. In each 'facet' of my work I want to apply the same artistic integrity, dedication to quality and wellspring of inspiration. For me it feels entirely natural to combine all these kinds of works into one portfolio and call the man who made them 'Composer.' Whether a love song or hymn, a symphony or a concept album, a jazz suite or an oratorio, there will always be behind it: Michael Wahlquist, Composer. No matter what the 'genre' of work I am creating, the same standards apply, especially moral standards. As a composer I have a purpose, and that brings us to tonight's main act.

LAST WEEKEND I was in Pittsburgh (a long way from Rexburg, Idaho where I live, or St. Petersburg, Russia, where I served my mission, but it does have a 'burg' suffix, so it must be destiny for me to live there. The random 'h' even echoes the random 'h' in my last name) with interviews at the University of Pittsburgh and Carnegie Mellon University. I particularly had a great time talking with composers Matthew Rosenblum and Eric Moe from the former and Nancy Galbraith and Leonardo Balada from the later. It was a wonderful experience and as different as the two schools are, I would love the opportunity to study at either. I'm also waiting to hear back from a few schools closer to home, in Utah.

A CURIOUS THING happened while speaking with Leonardo Balada. It has had me thinking ever since. He asked me about my time in Russia, whether it had been difficult, since they were mostly atheists. The question following was, "I'm an atheist, do you think I'm a bad person?" I have to admit, I was not expecting such a question, or really any questions about my faith, since I had only a 20 minute interview with these two composers at Carnegie Mellon, and since the discussion was supposed to focus on my portfolio of works. In any case, hopefully they got what they wanted from the interview, which did otherwise focus on my portfolio, influences, and education. Perhaps even my answer to his offhand question let them know that I am a composer of convictions. I told him that of course I respect all people no matter what they believe, and when it comes to music, I really appreciate it when a composer uses their music to express their philosophies or beliefs - how they feel about life. I then used the example of work of his, an "Agnostic Requiem" (by which title I might have guessed he would bring up my faith!) I'm really not worried that they will let my faith bias their decision. Nancy Galbraith, the other composer present, has plenty of religious music on record.

I REALLY BELIEVE that there is a lot of Truth, Beauty, and Wisdom that comes from people of all or no faith. I enjoy a good Requiem or even a Mass or Passion, even though I can't agree with every part of they message they contain. I enjoy a good love song, because if there is one way that almost everyone in the world glimpses the Divine it is by being in love and creating families. I love a well constructed jazz solo or violin concerto, because there is something inherently glorious in the act of musical expression and creation.

NOT EVERY composer/music-maker sets out with such a determination to express their beliefs and views of life through their music. I intend to be one of those composers who does. There is a such a vacuum of works that portray, endorse, promote and glorify the things that I believe in and for which I stand. One of the central tenets of my faith is that I 'seek after' things that are 'virtuous, lovely, of good report or praiseworthy'. I feel a sense of obligation to make sure that my music stands up for Truth and Beauty, that it is virtuous, lovely, and indisputably praiseworthy. There is so much music out there taking up people's attention and lives with things that either don't matter that much or even are harmful. I regard it as my duty as a composer, as a music maker and therefore entertainer, to make sure I stand in opposition to such things, as a one holding up a light and standard.

SO IN my love songs you will see a portrayal of the ideal of love and family life that I believe in. In my reverent music for church you will find conveyed as clearly and beautifully as possible the eternal truths on which I found my life. In my more classical works intended for the concert hall you will hear principles of Order and Beauty, you will find symbolism of concepts of faith and truth. To me it is all music, and it all expresses something about how I feel about life. I intend to be an active influence for good in the life of any person who hears my music. There is so much other music demanding our attention, I don't want to submit anything to the world that doesn't live up to these ideals.

I AM A COMPOSER. I want to make a variety of music, but I want it all to matter to the discerning listener. I know it can matter to someone because my music will embody, exemplify and exalt the things that matter to me. Those are the things of love, of family and eternity and gospel truths that I know will bless anyone who embraces them. So even if a person only ever hears a nocturne from me, or a love song, they will have heard something that is striving for true beauty and beautiful truths.

Starving Composer For Sale

Last night I listened to the State of the Union Address from President Obama. This being my composing blog, I won't remark on how I feel about the President or his policies. Let me say just two things that relate to my life as a composer.

I pray for Obama, literally - he is the one who is at the head of the nation, whether or not my vote was for him. I pray that his influence will be for good and help keep America the country it should be. In Rexburg, Idaho there may not be a lot I can do to support our nation, but I believe praying for our leaders is one valid way. It certainly won't hurt to ask that they have the courage, moral integrity, and even flashes of divine inspiration to do the right things for our nation. Just like I believe in the National Endowment for the Arts slogan "a great nation deserves great art," I believe that our great nation deserves great leaders, and those leaders deserve our prayers and support to help them be great.

The second thing I want to confess is that I actually broke down and wept, sobbing in my hands, when the President spoke of education reform. It isn't that the programs proposed will immediately effect me - they deal with leniency on loans and increase of Pell grants, etc. What particularly got to me was when he said why they are doing these changes, "Because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they chose to go to college." That touched me deep down at the core of what is going on in my life right now.

I got into college with the desire to make music. Over the course of my first year, that desire transformed solidly into composing. However, I found that BYU-Idaho didn't offer a degree in composing. After some thought and talks with my professors, I settled on Jazz Studies as 'the next best thing' and as a stepping stone to a later, graduate degree in composing. I also believed (and still do) that performance experience, I mean actually making music, is essential for a composer to understand how to write effectively. So, besides a two year break serving a mission for the LDS Church in St. Petersburg, Russia, I completed my degree in just four years. I even took classes in the summer sessions to keep this goal. Part of my rush to complete was the simple desire to move on: since BYU-Idaho didn't offer a degree in composition, I wanted to get my Jazz Studies degree and move on to a more focused education in composition. The other reason that I wanted to finish my degree in the traditional four years (unusual for a music student at BYU-I or many universities) is that I had committed to getting it in that time. The semester after I got back from my mission, I was offered a part time job teaching seminary. It was a great blessing. The generous compensation helped me get through school with relatively little dept. The job also offered the prospect of a career, if I were one of the lucky few who was chosen at the end of student teaching to get accepted full time. All they wanted in terms of educational experience was a degree, it didn't matter in what. I chose to stick to the degree I had already chosen, Jazz Studies, knowing that I could complete its requirements soonest. So it was that I committed to graduating in April 2009 so that I would be available for hire within about a two year period from the time my student teaching employment began. I stuck with it, even though it became increasingly apparent that not only was jazz not what I wanted as a career but even as it became more of a burden to pursue increased composing opportunities amidst increased demands from the jazz department. Pressure in the seminary program increased also as the time of hiring approached. I was visited in the classroom and interviewed by representatives from the regional offices and even Salt Lake.

Amidst all of this the economy collapsed. The LDS Church, ever quick to make fast the ship in the storm, as it were, initiated a hiring freeze that meant only a handful of student teachers (among hundreds church-wide) would be offered full-time jobs. That, among other factors, soon put an end to my hopes of having a stable career right out of college that would allow me to pursue composing on the side. Although it was difficult to be told 'no' I still interpreted this blow as a loving Father's way of saying, "I have something else in store for you!" It was still with a heavy heart I turned over my student teaching positions for the final trimester to teachers who still had a shot at being hired. I dedicated myself to finishing my studies as planned and moving on to plan B: immediately pursuing an education in composition. So in April of 2009 I 'graduated' from BYU-Idaho. However, it wasn't until the completion of my senior recital in July that I actually received my diploma. With a jazz band tour to California looming and suddenly out of the job, my wife and I took over a small managing position for a few girls' housing units on the corner of campus. While this provided no income, we had a place to stay. During the summer months I made the biggest mistake of my life, I think, and didn't actively look for a job until after my senior recital. The months and money slipped away as I practiced, composed, and began to get ready for grad school.

Finally I took up a job at a call center, part time. It is the kind of work that would have been just fine as a busy college student needing a small amount of income, but with a diploma in my hand, and wife and child to support, and high hopes, it was a bitter-sweet experience to have the job. I have been unable to find more work since, with the exception of a few grueling weeks in the fall driving trucks for the potato harvest. Several eateries in Rexburg have gone under, stable employers like the grocery store haven't hired in months. My wife Qait and I have had to move in with my parents. I can't even say how grateful I am for my parents doing this, or how difficult it is to be a married college graduate living at home again. Not only is it demoralizing and embarrassing, it seems to have taken the wind out of my sails. The only thing I managed to accomplish all fall semester (besides potatoes) was to compose a piece for harp, arrange my prelude and fugue, rework my string quartet, and chose and apply to universities. That was a huge process, don't get me wrong. But I wish I could have done it alongside a full time job, and I wish I could have done still more. Technically, I should have applied a year ago so that I could already be in grad school, but a year ago I was just trying to graduate and get hired to teach seminary. In a lot of ways this has felt like a low point of my life. When my car broke down, I had to borrow my grandma's car, since she couldn't drive right after her stroke, and I could in no way afford to replace my car. My wife doesn't have a place to call her own, it has been difficult to see her go through this. I rely on the generosity of my parents for nearly all that we have, from phones to car insurance to food. I am grateful and I feel awful.

It was a ray of light last week when I got to go to Pittsburgh. Carnegie Mellon University called me out for an interview, saying my portfolio had received positive faculty feedback. University of Pittsburgh was kind enough to also accommodate meeting with me on the same trip, and so I had a fantastic weekend dreaming of what it could be like to continue my studies and launch my career in such world-class institutions and such a well-connected location. However, the trip burned through some of the last savings I had from the potato job.

Maybe it is my fault for not getting a degree in engineering or financing or high school teaching or something else that is useful 'right out of the box.' I know that besides being a benefit to and advancement of our culture, my degree in Jazz Studies and pursuit of a degree in Composition offers little that is of immediate value to society or the economy. But I chose this path, and swore myself to it, at a time when I thought our culture, our economy and nation could support and use some of the 'higher things'. This economic crisis has already ended one potential career for me. Even though my degree can't even get me a burger-flipping job, I am determined to make it work. I have to admit my heart would be broken if I didn't get into any of the schools I applied to (three of seven have already said no, thank you, good luck), but I will continue to compose, to pursue this dream that I can make music needed by our society, my religion, and our culture. I suppose plan C would involve getting more specialized training in something useful like paper-filing or even a teaching certificate for high-school level. Plan D would involve joining the armed forces, who respect the fact that I got a degree, and would start me at a higher rate of pay for it.

So it was that I broke down (and quickly looked around to see that none of my sisters was looking over my shoulder) when Obama, the President of the United States, reaffirmed what I have been feeling for months: That no one should go broke because they chose to go to college, or in other words: education should matter. It is no use for me to wish that my professors would have talked me out of my degree, or complaining that they didn't prepare me for a career. This isn't their fault. I am the one who rushed to graduate like a good boy, knowing that Jazz Studies was a performance degree and that I am not a jazz performer at heart. So I hope to find 'salvation' in more education, and not only that, but the relative stability that comes from being a student, the professional opportunities that come from it, and hopefully someday, a stable career doing exactly what I've always wanted to do: teach and make music. In both of those pursuits I can hopefully give back to a society I am praying will help me get through this without making me feel like I can never pay back the debt, financial and otherwise.

It probably isn't chance that I just answered the phone to hear my dad tell me, "you are a good boy, a great boy." I am glad he still thinks so. I also hope that I can hear him someday call me a great man.