Remodeling My Life

The past few years have been a roller coaster. Once I would decide on a direction for my life, I would discover that life had other plans. I've always heard the old adage, "If you want to make God laugh, make plans." I have truly learned the meaning of that phrase over the past three years, but I feel like my life is finally heading in the right direction. With two degrees under my belt, I'm going back to school to earn my teaching certification. Seven years ago, I found the thought of teaching to be cringe-worthy. Another old adage ruled my thinking then, "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach." It took me a long time to realize the true folly of that ignorant statement. I've been teaching in some capacity or another for the past year and I cringe to think of how close I came to missing my calling. That calling is the classroom. Now I relish the thought of awakening possibility in the lives of my students. The moment that my students' eyes begin shining as a concept finally "clicks" is the greatest feeling in the world.

So now I embrace the remodeling of my life. I'm using this change in direction as an opportunity to better myself in other aspects. I'll be blogging quite a bit more than I have in the past so that I can track this metamorphosis more easily and in hopes that perhaps this transformation story will help others out there in need of the same personal re-definition.

The first project that I have set out to complete is a scholarly pursuit: "100 Must-Read Books: The Essential Man's Library." I decided to tackle this endeavor after reading an article of the same name on one of my favorite blogs, The Art of Manliness. AoM is "authored by husband and wife team, Brett and Kate McKay. It features articles on helping men be better husbands, better fathers, and better men." I highly recommend checking them out. This article, in particular, was written by Jason Lankow, Ross Crooks, Joshua Ritchie, and Brett Mckay. The aim was to identify 100 books that you don't just read, they change your life. Many of the books listed have not only changed the lives of individuals but have helped shape society in general as well as helping define broader cultural ideas of what it means to be a man.

The first book on the list that I read was The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli, considered to be the authoritative text on statesmanship and power. I will discuss my experience with it in a later post. In the meantime, let me welcome you to the new face of my blog and encourage you to look for and embrace ways to remodel your own life today, tomorrow, and always.

St. Patrick's Church Choir

Recently, the Mount Sterling Advocate did a feature piece on the St. Patrick's Church Choir, which has been under my direction for the past two years. In it, I shared much of the history of the choir. For obvious reasons, the entirety of what I shared could not be put in the story, but I wanted to share it here anyway. Enjoy.

St. Patrick’s Church Choir, a Historical Perspective

Once, Catholic churches across the United States boasted full choirs singing Gregorian chant, sacred polyphony, and great masterworks. Today, only a few besides cathedrals and the largest parishes can make such a claim. St. Patrick’s Church is lucky in that its choral program is growing, even if performances are somewhat seldom.

The choir at St. Patrick’s was founded around the turn of the last century by Fr. Libert de Waegenaere. Fr.  De Waegenaere was born in Alost, Belgium, and educated at the University of Louvein. Upon coming to America, he was ordained a priest in 1895. He took charge of St. Patrick’s in 1900 and remained there until 1905. He organized what was then a renowned church choir and was himself blessed with outstanding musical talent. Many of the pieces that the choir performed in those days were actually composed by Fr. De Weagenaere. A local newspaper of the time, the Mount Sterling Sentinel Democrat, during his assignment at St. Patrick’s noted, “Father De Waegenaere is a deep student, a scholar and a hard worker among his people, and under his direction, the church is still growing.” Father De Waegenaere remained for a period of six years and it was a source of universal regret when he was transferred to West Covington, Kentucky. He resigned from St. Paul Pastorate in Lexington in 1933 and returned to Alost where he devoted himself for several years to historical investigation of the life of Gregor Mendel, the Austrian scientist and “Father of Modern Genetics.” He died in 1952 at the age of 82.

Fr. De Waegenaere’s musical tradition at St. Patrick’s was upheld for more than half a century, however, as happened with so many other parishes of the time, St. Patrick’s lost her choir in the middle of the 20^th century, around the time of the Second Vatican Council. This was not unusual of the time. The Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Council’s document on the Liturgy signed in the mid 60s which allowed the Mass to be said in the regional vernacular, also made changes to liturgical music. Unfortunately for choirs across the country, some of the wording has often been misinterpreted. In chapter VI of Sacrosanctum Concilium, we are asked that all music of the Mass be actively participatory for the congregation. Unfortunately, this active participation is often misinterpreted as the Latin term participation actuoso, rather than participation activo. Actual participation. Churches took this to mean that the choir was to be abolished and replaced completely by the singing of the congregation when it was only to mean that the congregation was to be actively engaged. One can participate when one listens to the choir, just as one participates in the homily by listening quietly. Nevertheless, the choral tradition at St. Patrick’s, like so many others of the time, fell into obscurity.

However, in recent years, St. Patrick’s has made strides in reviving its choir, even amidst trying times and controversy. Former director of the choir, Mrs. Susan Howard, kept this choir going even when our parish lost two priests, almost ten years ago, who engaged in vow breaking behavior. The people of St. Patrick’s were hurting and the church community felt betrayed, but we endured nevertheless. Then, when we in the middle of negotiations two years ago to hire a part time choir director to help build the program after Mrs. Howard retired, trying times struck again and brought our negotiations to a halt for six months after our then priest fell to controversy and was sent home by the Diocese of Lexington to India.

In such trying situations, lesser choirs would have folded. However, the people of St. Patrick’s stayed strong and the members of her choir kept their musical dream alive. This season, as I finish my second year as St. Patrick’s choir director, I look back on what we’ve done with extreme pride and look forward to the new things that even now we have planned for the future with great enthusiasm. I was born into the St. Patrick’s community and I feel nothing but adoration towards it and the greater community of Mt. Sterling. It always has been and always will be my home and, especially during this Christmas season, I feel eternally blessed to be able to take an active role within it. 

Fr. Libert de Waegenaere, a Brief Biography

Father De Waegenaere was born in Alost, Belgium, and educated at the University of Louvein in Belgium. Upon coming to America, he was ordained a priest in 1895. His first charge was St. Mary’s Cathedral, Covington, Kentucky, where he remained until 1898. He took charge of St. Patrick’s in Mt. Sterling in 1900 and remained there for five years from 1900-1905. He organized a renowned church choir and was blessed with outstanding musical talent.

Father De Waegenaere resigned from St. Paul Parish, Lexington, in 1933. He went to Kneipp Sanatorium in Rome City, Indiana, in November 1933, and sailed for Belgium on December 13, 1933. While in Europe, Father De Waegenaere devoted himself for several years to historical investigation of the life of Gregor Mendel, the Austrian scientist, and visited Austria for this purpose. Father De Waegenaere died in Alost, Belgium on September 8, 1952, at the age of 82. His funeral Mass was celebrated at St. Joseph Church, Alost, Belgium, on September 10, 1952.

*****

Father Libert De Waegenaere took charge of Mt. Sterling in 1900. He was a native of Alost, Belgium. A young man of zeal and energy quickly won the affections of the people.

Being a talented musician, he soon organized a most efficient church choir, whose reputation spread far and wide…A local newspaper [The Sentinel Democrat], during his assignment here noted, “Father De Waegenaere is a deep student, a scholar and a hard worker among his people, and under his direction, the church is still growing.” Father De Waegenaere remained for a period of six years and it was a source of universal regret when he was transferred to West Covington, Kentucky. He resigned from St. Paul Pastorate, Lexington, Kentucky, in 1933, returning to Alost, Belgium, where he died on September 8, 1952.

(Both excerpts taken from History of St. Patrick Parish, 1982)

___________________________________________

The choir will perform its Christmas concert on December 24 @ 9:30 PM. Please see https://sites.google.com/site/nickbreiner/home/christmaseve2012 for program. Thanks for reading!

Musical Masterpiece - My Personal Definition

What is a masterpiece? Originating from the 16^th century Dutch word meesterstuk (or meisterstück in German), its definition stands today as “a person’s greatest piece of work, as in art.” However, historically a masterpiece was a piece made by a person aspiring to the rank of master in a guild or other craft organization as proof of competence, thereby allowing them to open private business instead of continuing work as a journeyman under the tutelage of another master. Therefore, some might classify any work beyond the intangible level of “journeyman” to be a masterpiece by definition. However, by our standards today, masterpiece implies a much deeper meaning than that and a number of components are expected to be present in any such musical masterpiece.

David Dubal, an internationally known pianist, teacher, writer, and broadcaster as well as a well known authority on piano literature, describes that a masterpiece is a work which evokes that which he calls aesthetic ecstasy or aesthetic rapture. In his lecture at the Aspen Ideas Festival in 2006 he goes on to describe aesthetic rapture as the most important of rewards that a person can receive from art; a significant emotional response that is a thrill on multiple levels which may include, but is not limited to, the emotional, the intellectual, and the erotic.

According to Dubal, a masterpiece brings forth form and beauty from chaos. Life is, by its very nature, a perpetual pandemonium, and a masterpiece being as nearly flawless as is humanly possible organizes that chaos into perceivable and aesthetically enjoyable form. Masterpieces, in this way, are both of the organic stuff of life as well as being tempered by a spark of the divine. Many composers through history have come to realize this connection:

“Almost all great composers understood that Bach was the height. Casals would open every morning with his prayer; the prayer of playing six preludes and fugues of Bach. Stravinsky did the same. Brahms never even had breakfast until he played “The Well-Tempered Clavier”. And yet it wasn’t even published until 1801, 50 years after its creation.”

- David Dubal

Dubal’s assertion of purity of form as the cornerstone of the definition of masterpiece is not a new idea. This strain of thinking goes all the way back to Plato in his Republic. Using his master Socrates as a vehicle for initiating thought, Plato introduces the Theory of Forms, which becomes an integral part of Platonism and ultimately the grand assumption upon which his entire philosophy is based (much to Nietzsche’s exasperation). But all arguments aside as to whether “the corrupter” deserved his hemlock, the Theory of Forms remains a much discussed topic in philosophy today and, as Dubal would postulate, is applicable to analysis and value judgment of music. Thus, for a work to be considered a masterpiece, then it must hearken to the purest form of art (Plato might see this as akin to his Form of the Good). In its near flawlessness, a masterpiece evokes aesthetic rapture through pure form and thus brings some order to an otherwise chaotic existence.

The argument on the definition of masterpiece is long standing and one not likely to be settled anytime soon. Some definitions are more simple, others exhaustingly elaborate and restrictive. Let us take Bach’s Das Wohltemperierte Klavier for example. Today there are few who would not claim The Well-Tempered Clavier among the greatest masterpieces of the Baroque period. I count myself among those who praise this particular work as a masterpiece, but if it were not for Felix Mendelssohn, J.S. Bach’s entire catalogue and reputation may have continued to languish in obscurity and faded entirely to be ultimately lost among the debris of history. Yet, today, it resides amongst the most played collections of piano music of all time. Perhaps this is what truly defines a masterpiece. J.S. Bach died in 1750, but either by the admiration of a later composer or by the virtue inherent in his composition, Bach’s work survives today, 262 years after his death. Perhaps that is not only the model by which we measure a masterpiece, but of the master. Ultimately, it is one’s legacy that must either live on in this world or die in obscurity. This is life’s greatest test.

The Game Concludes: Did America kill jazz?

The last suspect on our list is none other than the birthplace of jazz. We gave birth to this great American art form and then, a few decades later, developed some sort of Abraham complex and slew it… allegedly. For the prosecution we have Stuart Nicholson, author of the book entitled “Is Jazz Dead? Or has it Moved to a New Address”:

For years Americans have regarded European jazz with the same tolerant smile they reserve for Japanese baseball. But something is stirring in the Old World. A generation of musicians is emerging from Europe's jazz underground, and now they're raising a tolerant smile at the mention of American jazz. Talk to them about the current state of the music, and it's as if an old and dear friend has passed away. They believe American jazz is retreating into the past while Europe is moving the music into the 21st century.

-Stuart Nicholson, 2001

Nicholson essentially goes on to argue that American jazz is no longer innovative. We all share the philosophy of Wynton Marsalis and simply hang onto the traditions of the past as though they were law. The reason 80% of Ken Burns’ documentary on jazz was before WWII is because sometime shortly after that jazz died, along with its innovative nature. Where the European jazz scene once followed America’s lead, they now have completely moved on, while America still lies in the 40s. He presents quotes of European artists like the Norewegian pianist Brugge Wesseltoft as evidence:

“I think American jazz somehow has really stopped, maybe in the late 70’s, early 80’s. I haven’t heard one interesting American record in the last 20 years. It’s like a museum, presenting stuff that’s already been done.”

-Brugge Wesseltoft, 2001

Certainly this evidence is quite damning. It’s really America’s own fault for not creating anything new since 1965. We all blindly follow the lead of Wynton Marsalis, who is obviously the only jazz musician worth mentioning in America today, and that has landed us on this retreat into the past. Nicholson goes on to tell us that if American jazz is to ever have a hope of sticking around, it will have to survive of a protective government subsidy, since there are no audiences to support it anymore. This definitely sounds like we’ve finally closed the case and found our murderer, but before the gavel sounds, there is one counterargument I would like to make.

Stuart Nicholson is an idiot.

Wait one second! There hasn’t been any American contribution to the innovation of jazz for over 20 years? I would like to call the following musicians as witnesses to the contrary:

Ralph Alessi

David Gilmore

Tyshawn Sorey

David Binney

Jason Moran

Gary Thomas

Steve Coleman

Greg Osby

Mark Turner

Dave Douglas

Lonnie Plaxico

Robin Eubanks

Kurt Rosenwinkle

No, Wynton Marsalis is not on that list, but there is a reason his name sparks controversy among American jazz musicians. We don’t all share his philosophy of music. It’s great that Marsalis keeps tradition alive. I mean, it’s always a good thing to remember and appreciate your roots, but his music is far from the rule in America.

That being said, Europe is certainly doing some great things with jazz. They are now at a point where they are no longer imitating American jazz as they did in the past, but have now taken the music in a new direction of their own. This is wonderful, but it doesn’t mean that American jazz is dead. Jazz in America is very much alive. In 1972 there were only 15 universities that offered degrees in jazz studies. That number in America alone is in the hundreds today, stretching from coast to coast. Every year, American schools turn out hundreds of new jazz musicians into the field.

Jazz is not dead. Period. What started in the American south in the late 19^th century has now spread worldwide. Musicians from all over the world can commune with this one common language. Jazz in America has seen more than its share of bad times, but that certainly doesn’t mean that it’s dead. Far from it, in fact. And now, without a victim, we have no case. America is cleared of all charges and free to go listen to some new jazz. Case dismissed.

The Game Continues: It was technology, in the 1970s, with...a candlestick?

For those that believe jazz is dead, they typically cite the 1970s as the time of death. The 70s saw the birth of a cultural revolution, the likes of which had never been seen in the US. This decade saw a number of events which would begin to shape the culture we have today. The 70s was a period marked by the end of U.S. involvement in Vietnam, the Watergate scandal and President Nixon’s subsequent resignation, Steve Jobs introduces the Apple Macintosh PC and suddenly the population finds their obsession with personal technology, and the British Invasion dominates the music scene with groups like Led Zepplin, The Who, Black Sabbath etc, as well as the birth of heavy metal. The 70s also saw the first real use of electronic music and synthesizers, and by 1976, the use of digital recording. The foundation and building blocks for the pop music of today had been laid out, all in a very short time.

In a very short time, we see the popularity of jazz give way to funk, fusion, British rock, and heavy metal. Our world becomes much faster paced, and the evolution of music gets kicked into overdrive. The “quantity over quality” mentality begins to kick in, as the sheer amount of music available grows exponentially as well as the accessibility of music due to the advances in technology. America was quickly sprinting to the digital age.

Still, I’m not convinced that the case against technology for the murder of jazz has been substantiated. Certainly I concede that the 70s brought about vast change, not only in the world of music, but reconstructed our entire culture. Technology has certainly changed the world of music more still since the 70s. Between technological innovations such as Auto-Tune and GarageBand some begin to worry that someday actual musicians will no longer be needed. Pop stars today can almost be manufactured, and after hearing some music today I use the word “almost” very generously. But there was still great jazz being made in spite of this cultural revolution. Even though jazz was being pulled into a plethora of directions, there were still those that held onto more traditional forms of the music which is so deeply intertwined in American heritage. The big bands of Duke Ellington and Count Basie were still very active and continued to play even after these legends died (1974 and 1984 respectively). Free jazz players who had made a name for themselves in the 60s such as Ornette Coleman, Sun Ra and the Art Ensemble of Chicago. The 1970s also brought about the inclusion of jazz into academia. In 1972 only 15 schools in the U.S. offered degrees in jazz studies. This number would increase to 72 in the next 10 years.

All in all, I would say that while the 70s brought about great change in music and in culture, it cannot be appropriately cited as either time or cause of death of jazz. Jazz evolved during this time, and in many ways became something new. This helped shape our culture and lay the groundwork for the music of today. Change doesn’t mean better, and it doesn’t mean worse. Most importantly though, it does not mean “dead”. The case against technology and the 1970s is hereby dismissed.

The Game Continues: did Wynton Marsalis kill jazz?

Wynton Marsalis. Since you’re reading a blog about jazz, I imagine his name will mean something to you. To some, his name rolls off the tongue, dripping like honey with admiration as one of the leading jazz musicians of our day. To others, his name is to be spat out with angry bitterness for how he has tainted their beloved music with his very existence. Whichever of these groups you belong to, you cannot deny that Marsalis has been a driving influence in jazz today, be it for better or worse.

So why is it that Wynton Marsalis now finds himself on the list of suspects in the alleged murder of jazz? He first made a target of himself when he wrote this article in 1988. Marsalis’ greatest sin as an artist is not recognizing the legitimacy of other art and his obsession with a label. It seems what has earned him such disdain is his rigid definition of what jazz is. His faithful clinging to the ways and traditions of the swing era has kept alive the forms of jazz long thought dead, all while claiming his to be the one true jazz.

Now before we take up arms to slay the false prophet in some sort of jazz crusade, let’s do a little evaluating here. There is little question that what Wynton Marsalis plays IS jazz. He has also been extremely successful with it, earning 9 Grammy Awards and one Pulitzer Prize since 1983. This is the point that I think people are angered by the most. Marsalis has essentially ignored every jazz innovation since 1960 (before he was even born) and many still regard him as the single most influential jazz musician living today.

I believe we can put the case of this “jazz heretic” away. Put away your pitchforks and douse your torches, because Wynton Marsalis has been wrongly charged of killing jazz. Go ahead, I’ll wait for you to get back. There, have a seat and calm yourself. I think we get so worked up over this particular trumpet player because he seems to defy the rule. He refuses to let go of the old ways, the beginnings of our art form, and yet he still remains hugely successful in what we know to be a progressive world driven by innovation. If anything, I feel he has done the world of jazz a great service by keeping our roots alive in his music. Yes, perhaps his rigid stance on labels in music is less than infallible but, love him or hate him, history WILL remember him as a great influence in the world of jazz. Yes, music, like all things, will move forward. Sometimes though, we all must be reminded of where we’ve been.

(originally posted on Jazz Heresy)

"Hipsters, flipsters, and finger-poppin' daddies, knock me your lobes."

There exists a devision among our people. Classical musicians look down upon the jazz musicians for their hipster ways and blatant abuse of music theory (which for some has become music law). Jazz musicians look down on the classical musicians as being "classical snobs" who haven't evolved their craft since circa 1800. Pop musicians look down on them both for holding onto traditions older than a few years while they go to spend their millions on Auto-Tune and "Rehab." These are the ideas we seem to hold strongly onto at least.

I once was approached by a professor, who after finding out I was a classical musician, decided to inquire what kinds of music I like. I find this to be the most commonly asked question of me as a musician. I quickly responded with a well ingrained answer that spoke something of the love of composers like Mahler and Wagner, and the loathing pretty much everything else (Britney Spears and 50 Cent come to mind).

She shook her head and walked away. Perplexed, I followed and asked what was wrong with what I had said. "As a musician you really should be more supportive of others of your craft. Not caring for another's music is one thing, but hating it outright and having no appreciation whatsoever for the music or the artist is quite another." I was blown away by this comment. Never before had I ever thought of people like Jessica Simpson and Eminem as colleagues. Performers of pop music had no real talent and where just there to brainwash the masses and leech the money away from "real musicians."

I was rather humbled by this encounter. I found myself actually having an appreciation for music written post 19th century. I'm not claming to actually LIKE everything I hear today. I mean, I still don't see the draw of rap songs like "Fuck Dat Bitch", but I can concede that they have their place. Along the way I've actually found that some of today's music is actually quite good. This is an experience that I never would have enjoyed if I hadn't been able to admit to myself that yes, I was a "classical music snob". Music is not born with a label. The genre is just something we've applied later, but it all falls under the umbrella term of music. It should all, therefore, be given an equall chance. Who knows? You might actually find yourself to be pleasently surprised at what you find.