Wednesday, April 25, 2012

Tribute to my sandals

While I was in college, I had very little extra money for anything.  At one point, I was working maybe 2 or 3 part time jobs, piecemealing about $500 a month to live on--$200 of which was my portion of rent (thank God for student loans, full time summer jobs and my parents or tuition would have never gotten paid).  A very good friend gave me first dibs on dress clothes that she was replacing, I had a paid-for, reliable pickup truck, and some dishes that a roommate left behind when she moved out for whoever wanted them (which I still have.  It was a nice set!)

What I splurged on was shoes.  I bought my first set of really nice running shoes with some gig money I earned singing at a church.  First hiking boots came from an Easter trumpet gig.  The year I did my student teaching, I met Tyson, who had student taught with the same guy the year before me.  After we had been dating a few months, I graduated and he bought me my first pair of Tevas as a graduation present (then, as now, he has a talent for knowing what the perfect gift is for me on special occasions).  I had really wanted a pair of those sandals, but being as short on money as I was, I couldn't justify spending $40 or $50 on SANDALS.  The money I received as graduation presents from relatives bought me a two day trip to San Jose/San Francisco (and yes I realize I could have bought my own Tevas with that money, too, but my boyfriend had already done it for me!!).  So my adventures with these shoes started with a trip to California.  My first solo traveling experience.

Now I should say that I'm writing this because today, TEN YEARS LATER, I have finally replaced these sandals.  And they're not falling apart.  I'm replacing them because the velcro is finally coming unstitched a little bit, and the rubber is worn down at the toes so they're not as comfortable as they used to be.

But.

I'm having trouble throwing them out because we've been through so much together.  I know it's stupid to get sentimental about a pair of shoes.  These sandals have been with me:
1) To San Francisco, twice.
2) To England and Spain, twice.
3) to Scotland once---and were the shoes I wore the first time I drove in the UK (eek!)

4) Getting in and out of the moving truck back and forth across 4000 miles of driving.
5) Every summer we were in Chicago.  Outdoor concerts, running to catch a train, Cubs games, hiking to class across the NU campus, exploring forest preserves, Indiana Dunes and Starved Rock state parks and countless trips to the shore of Lake Michigan.
6) A night out in Reno because all my other shoes were packed in the moving truck.
7) On my last two plane trips---Las Vegas and Phoenix---because they're easy to take off like flip-flops but are sturdy enough to run from gate to gate if the TSA makes you late for boarding.
8) Every backpacking trip, up a ridge between Mt. St. Helens and Mt. Ranier, crossing rivers and rock scrambling.
9) Two trips to Shasta Lake and Bend.

I guess I'm not really sentimental about the sandals themselves but all the adventures they represent.

But seriously, TEN YEARS? What pair of shoes lasts that long with that much abuse? So even though the replacement pair was exactly twice as much as what Tyson paid for the first pair, I figure if these new ones bring me half the adventure the first pair did, they'll be worth every penny.

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

So there I was, innocently watching Jon Stewart...

I really enjoy "The Daily Show" and "Colbert Report" but sometimes I don't watch the interviews.  Especially if it's a ditzy actress who is only on there to plug a generic soon-to-be-forgotten movie.   Generally, I like watching the interviews if it's someone interesting (I love it especially when the Daily Show has Bill O'Reilly on....)

So tonight, I'm watching the interview because it happens to be Madeleine Albright, and the last time I remember her being on was during the 2008 presidential primary and in the interview endorsed Hillary Clinton and blasted NCLB for its part in narrowing educational curriculum (although I've seen it more in music, PE, and arts, and she was specifically referring to civics and social studies being de-emphasized, it was gratifying to know that I'M NOT THE ONLY ONE SEEING THIS TREND!) Anyhoo...

She's on the show promoting her new book called "Prague Winter" specifically outlining Czechoslovakia from the Nazi invasion until a few years after the end of the war, 1937-1948.  And while I knew she was an immigrant turned naturalized citizen (thank you Alexandra Pelosi for that amazing documentary you made), I didn't know that she was from Czechoslovakia.

I'm an American mutt.  No doubt about it, with a Scottish/English name (the village of Fife has quite a few Beveridges....it's not as unusual as you think!) most of my family has been in the U.S. long enough that I can't quite claim any particular "ethnicity"---except one.

My great-grandmother was born in Czechoslovakia which makes me an eighth Czech---the largest percentage of my "mutt."  Or so I had been told my whole life.  What I learned tonight, and I'm not sure how I didn't find this out before, is that Czechoslovakia did not exist as a country until 1918, at the end of WWI.  Prior to that, it was a collection of small ethnic regions that were under the control of the Austro-Hungarian empire.   There were three primary regions in the area that became the country of Czechoslovakia: Bohemia, Moravia-Silisia, and Slovakia.  There was also a small region that was part of the country but annexed by the Soviet Union after WWII and now is part of Ukraine.

Here's the part that has blown my mind tonight: My great-grandmother was born in 1903.  Her father immigrated here, established work and a home, then went back for the family.  She came here when she was 11, which would make the year 1914, or the start of WWI.  Czechoslovakia wasn't even a country yet.  So now, without knowing which village they actually came from, I don't know which ethnic group they belonged to.  Where was she really from?  Which language did they speak? Hungarian? German? Czech? Slovak? Could I say that I am actually an eighth ethnically Bohemian (because how cool would THAT be as a musician, hahahaha)?

And really, does it matter?  It doesn't change the fact that they decided to come here---for what reason now, I don't know (my neighbor's family left Germany when the Nazis took over---did my great-great grandfather see the warning signs of WWI? Or was it just about work/opportunity like so many others in that era?). But writing this all down means I might be able to sleep tonight instead of letting my mind stew about it and keep me awake.

Sunday, April 15, 2012

Is America's "religion" the military? (Not what you think!)

Before you jump to any conclusions (and yes, the title was designed to do that), this isn't a directly political post.  It's a post about live music, and our society's perceived and actual value of it.

A little background info on those of you who may not know already: I grew up in a Lutheran church.  We used hymnals.  We clap on beat 1 and 3.  Raising hands in the air is allowed, but will get you strange looks, and you'll probably be the only one.   When I started studying music theory in college, I found the Bach chorales we studied to be comforting and familiar because a lot of those chorales are still used in traditional churches.  My high school boyfriend grew up Nazarene and we would argue about what "old-fashioned hymn" meant.  He defined it as tent-revival-1800's-early-1900's, and I would laugh at him.  "Really?  'Old' to you means 100 years? Try FIVE hundred."  In any case, as much as I appreciate a really rocking band with electric bass and drums, sometimes it's also really awesome to hear a much older piece done well, like an organ sonata, being performed in its original context.

But I am also a jazz musician, and a choir director, and probably a bit more open minded about contemporary music in church than your average classically-trained-singer.

As a music teacher, I really do understand why some churches shy away from "classical" style music.  Young people don't listen to it (or it's assumed that they don't), or pastors understand in order for it to be done well, they have to hire someone who is trained.  Some churches can only afford a piano player or organist, some are lucky enough to have a budget to hire actual music directors and choral section leaders.  Some churches rely on volunteers only.  My opinion on this is about the same as non-union symphonies, theaters that pay actors more than the pit musicians, and bar owners who pay the entire band a percentage of the cover (but expect them to bring their own fans and groupies).

Let me put it to you another way: Let's say your talent is working with tools.  You're a very talented carpenter.  Having me ask you to volunteer to do your job for free for the church (which took time, money, and training to hone that innate talent) is an insult.  But maybe you see that your church needs something fixed, and you're willing to donate your time to help out once or twice because you know they don't have the money to pay you.  That's different than the church approaching YOU and asking you to fix things week after week after week for no pay (or worse, expecting you to provide materials as well ALL YEAR LONG).    But for some reason, churches have no problem (or shame) in asking musicians to do this.  "It's your gift" they say. "You should WANT to do it."  Yeah, sure.  I was talented before I went to college, too.  But you want me to do it NOW because I have two degrees in it, and I can do it WELL.  Those degrees and that training wasn't free, people.  No one expects the pastor to work for free (although to be fair, many do it for very little money or work second jobs to support themselves which I also think is unjust).


So now, with all that said, let me get back to my original point....
Historically, if music was your profession, you were somebody's employee (if you wanted to eat, anyhow). You worked for a church, or were sponsored by royalty or the aristocracy.  To a large extent, if you want to be a live performer, that is still largely true today (I know we don't have royalty, but in terms of symphony or full time church gigs, those are often supported by those people with the means to give LOTS of money away, our modern aristocracy....)  However, most pros are freelancers, meaning they piecemeal different gigs together in the hopes that they will make enough to support themselves.  The real danger in being a "freelancer" in this country is really the lack of financial stability and health care (especially health care).  And as many Portland musicians know right now as Brian Tierney lays in the hospital of unprovoked gunshot wounds, those two things are inseparably related.  If you want to be a professional live performer in this country and have conventional health insurance as we know it you have only a few options: 1) Do music part time and hold a non-related day job that provides health insurance. 2) Work as a church music director in a semi-large church that also requires you to sing or play an instrument. Not as a piano player in a small church or as a choral ringer.   3) Teach music in the schools.  And let me tell you, these days there is no guarantee that there's any stability THERE, either.  In 10 years of teaching, I have taught everything K through Community College except orchestra just to STAY EMPLOYED. 4) Have a full-time symphony job.  Good luck with that, especially if you live in Louisville... 5) Be a musician in the military.  And before you argue that I left out pop musicians, most of them are not professional live performers.  Most of them make the bulk of their money in the recording studio and frankly, your chances of getting one of those gigs is like getting a symphony job, or being struck by lightning.

So #5 is the one I had an epiphany about today (while, not coincidentally, I was driving to my non-paid church gig...).  If the bulk of musicians were historically employed and provided for (in many cases, housing and meals plus a stipend) by the church, what does it say that the only stable, living wage, music performer gig in this country is in our military?  Are 3 and 4 star generals the only people who understand the value of live music? Because we have no state-mandated religion, as a society, we have no common ceremonies except those at sports events and military functions.  And no one complains that there isn't enough "crowd participation" at these ceremonies, because they understand that being part of the spectator group and actively appreciating things done by other people is also an important job.  But for some reason, in other parts of our lives, our expectations seem to be different.  Either we don't want to pay for it, or if we do pay for it, we expect the kind of performance that can only be done with the aid of computers and digital sound software.

I'm still not sure where I'm going with all this, maybe I'll continue in another post---it all still feels very nebulous, but I know I'm onto something that's been bugging me for a while, which is my perception of music being devalued as a profession....help me out.  Thoughts?