Authenticity and Femininity in American Popular Music Culture

[A train of thought developed over dissertation free writing this morning]

I've always wanted to explore the use of "artistry" as a signifier in American Idol judges' critiques. It seems to come down to a matter of authenticity. Does the performer have an original voice that has been developed, or is the singer merely copying those who came before them? 

Authenticity is something that has been coming up a lot in critiques of female pop performers this summer. Katy Perry continues to ruffle feathers with her exoticism (article written before this video was even released) and cultural appropriation , which is also a similar complaint launched against Iggy Azalea. 

All of which comes back to early twentieth century American musical culture, where the women who were most popular in cultivated musical society upheld the status quo of female performers-- gentile decorum. And those who tried to do things differently were made into caricatures. Granted the closest appropriation for white women was that of public masculine identities. And the exotic other was still regulated to the racial others. 

But perhaps that is why we see such success with Taylor Swift. It's less than 24 hours old at this point, Taylor's newest music video plays directly to her fan base, much like the female classical musicians of the 1900s. Taylor tries out different genres of dance, realizing though that she doesn't fit, she "shakes it out" and joins in dancing with her fans. She might dress like Audrey Hepburn, and she seems to have 'shaken off' the country roots that helped launch her career, but she still appeases the widest possible audience without appropriating anything seemingly "inauthentic."

"Always be Chasing the Sun"

If you were to summarize my life's work in two words, it would easily be  Texas and music. Naturally women is the thread that connects the two. So here is what I ruminated on over Winter Break.

I travel a lot of back roads. I always have, but now Instagram and Pinterest has taken my interest in old abandoned places to a new level. So any chance I get, I take an out-of-the-way road to see if there's an old building, school, theatre, or graveyard to photograph. White Church Cemetery is one that I discovered along the way. Not too far away from my family's homestead (probably about 15 miles), it still sees a few visitors but is primarily filled with graves of long forgotten Texans who settled in a harsh Canyon hoping for a better life.

It was there that I discovered Martha and Mamie. Martha Turner (1875-1904) was "the sunshine of [her] home" according to her headstone. She is buried beside two baby girls who never even made it to one month old. And upon closer examination, Martha died nine days after baby Mamie died at birth. I've gone to plenty of old cemeteries, but over Christmas break, her headstone hit me harder than any I've ever seen. Think of the pain and suffering she felt in those days leading up to her death. The immense loss. Here was this Texas woman, the same age as me, and because of her desire to have children on this barely settled harsh land, she died. I obviously only know what the headstones tell me, but the three small cemeteries I visited in southern Nolan and Taylor counties were overrun with children born in the early 20th century who never made it to their first birthday.

On New Year's day, I took a daisy out to her headstone. I wanted something happy to be there. I wanted there to be a symbol that she was not forgotten. She is another example of why I do what I do. I want to chronicle the stories of strong women. Women who might have been forgotten, who fought for us to become what we are today. Women who paved the way for me to be able to work and live independently and earn a PhD. I do this in memory of them because they could not. They are what keep me pushing when I think I'm burned out and done.

As mentioned here before, Sara Bareilles is the voice inside my head; her music just speaks to my soul. Probably because she's a pianist songwriter who writes about doubting her abilities, her most recent album "The Blessed Unrest" has become my soundtrack (also, the title is a Martha Graham quote about persevering for your art, so bonus). And today "Chasing the Sun, " a song exploring life and death, summarizes my experience in that cemetery with Mamie and Martha. Texan pioneer life was rough-- we owe it to those who came before us to embrace this life and make the most of it that we can.

There's a history through her

Sent to us as a gift from the future, to show us the proof

More than that, it's to dare us to move

And to open our eyes and to learn from the sky

From a cemetery in the center of Queens

You said, remember that life is

Not meant to be wasted

We can always be chasing the sun!

So fill up your lungs and just run

But always be chasing the sun!

All we can do is try

And live like we're still alive

The Wrecking of Hannah Montana

There have been a lot of good articles written in the aftermath of the Miley Cyrus VMA performance. From likening it to minstrelsy to being the epitome of the YOLO movement, there are many interpretations out there. I keep reading about it and thinking about it, and now I want to add my two cents, building from a discussion with my esteemed advisor a couple of weeks ago. To oversimplify, there are ways in which people enact change. There are those who are strategic and others who are revolutionary. [For a more articulate look into this, see my advisor's write-up.]
And the reason for this fast blog post is to say that Miley was revolutionary. And like all the revolutionary women before her, she has largely been rejected in the media.
The latest image from her newest video is proof of this-- a revolutionary wipes off the previous expectations and conceptions. They reject the past entirely. Which is why many in America are so dismayed with Miley's current performances.

This week:

circa 2009 

It is most definitely a class and a race and a gender issue. Miley was a white girl, raised in the south, by her upper-middle class family. She enacted wholesome family values on her show Hannah Montana, and especially in the movie we see deep ties with country music. I firmly believe this is why people are so distraught over the ties to "black" twerking. Or "urban" music. Or her short hair and barely-there clothing.

Miley has shed entirely her childhood image. And whereas some say Brittney did it more successfully, I would say Brittney was more strategic. This is a natural stage of growing up, exploring your identity. And celebrities will obviously act this process out on a larger stage. I think where we should be concerned is not the new source material for their identities, but rather the growing number of girls who are acting out upon "growing-up" for for no apparent reason or logical-thinking whatsoever. Selena Gomez's latest album was simply her attempt to be sexier. Add to that, and perhaps more distressing, is Miley's explanation for her VMA performance:

"We're three days later and people are still talking about it. They're over-thinking it. You're thinking about it more than I thought about it when I did it. Like, I didn't even think about it 'cause that's just me."

A revolutionary wrecking ball. Destroying previous pop-princess personas one thoughtless performance at a time.

Possibilities of Pinterest: Dissertation Board

With my dissertation topic given the initial go ahead, I have begun the compiling process. Bibliographies grouped by subject. Digital primary sources by category. And now images on their own website. A link has been placed to to the right of this post, but I wanted to draw attention to the promise of this new platform.

Pinterest, the obsession of ever sorority girl (for their dream weddings) and crafty mothers (for home improvement and children's birthday parties), can be used for good. Professors have begun using them to collect links of images and videos. I'm not there yet, and sure, I've been using it for recipes and plotting a dream home at my family's farm. But I've set up a board entitled "dissertation" that will include the images I've found that directly relate to my dissertation. It is a start and a good visual overview of the subjects and themes of the document. The website in general has great promise and maybe this will inspire others to consider it when beginning their research. So check it out! http://www.pinterest.com/elissadear/dissertation/

Les Miserables and "live" singing

When the new "extended first look" for the new Les Miserables movie was released, Lin Manuel Miranda summed up my feelings exactly by saying "Awwwwwwww sh!t"

This revolutionizes movie musicals, and I completely drank the kool-aid: this will make it so much more believable.  There is more artistic integrity and flexibility with this method. Then I started reading the reactions from others. They all make valid points: amusicology asking who will get credit for the musical director's role. And kellimarshall taking offense to the "pretty version" comment. I agree that there are faults in relying too heavily upon the actor's musical sensibilities as well as questions of editing and the overlay of orchestral tracks in post-production.

But what I took away from this was the implications of the immense changes in perception of musical function. Yes, sadly many people today do feel that musicals like The Sound of Music or even recent adaptations like Chicago are unnatural. For many, the formulaic "bursting into song" is a huge turn off. Besides that it does not help that the actors are stiffly required to fit their movements into prerecorded tracks. There is more rigidity inherently with this technique. And yes I realize, as with all musicals, there must be suspension of disbelief on the part of the audience.

Notice, though, that many musicals written today are trying to integrate the music by having it function in different ways (see, for example, Spring Awakening). As part of this Zeitgeist of realism in musical theatre, Glee tried to do away with some of the "unnatural" detractors by ensuring all of their songs function within the plot (choir competitions, jamming with friends, singing to themselves, etc etc). You can't change the way the songs function in the drama of a beloved musical theatre work, however, and I think Les Mis directors are doing the next best thing.

I am sure in the case of "Master of the House" or "Lovely Ladies" that we'll still see characters burst into song on the screen. But in other moments, like Hugh Jackman alluded to in the video, there is a sort of ease that can be taken with singing. The songs are still in place, the tempo, notes, and rhythms are still present. What this "live" performing allows for is less of the the overacting that is so frequently done by classically trained singers (who were taught to be operatic, which is not a bad thing). Anne Hathaway has a point: Fantine is at her lowest moment during "I Dreamed a Dream"; it does not make sense for her to suddenly belt out an enormous ballad. The fragility, yes, may be due in part that Hathaway's voice cannot compare to previous Fantine's performances. But one cannot deny the power she commands in her performance.

These actors can turn inward and more subtly sing the songs as if they were not addressing an audience but thinking to themselves. In doing so, the music becomes a more natural outgrowth of human emotion, and thereby changes the way the music and plot in general is perceived. It does become more "realistic" because suddenly the music functions as part of the drama. In a society that demands crime shows nightly and "reality" television, this is one way to soothe the masses and reach a wider audience.

So after drinking the kool-aid and a bit of a buzz kill with others' reactions, I'm not completely back to the jubilation I once had.Nevertheless, this new direction is exciting, and I am very much looking forward to not only seeing this musical, but the musicals that will be filmed in the future. The aforementioned Spring Awakening is forever in talks to be made into a movie, as is Wicked. It will be interesting to see if future directors take this new leap in musical production.

Feminism, Intentionalism, and the Arts

I won't say that I spoke too soon about my women's studies class. I will say that last night was a good class, but I expected it to be. Last night's topic (in part) was "feminist art epistemologies." So taking aesthetics over the summer and then art this semester, I knew I'd have plenty to contribute and fight back with. Plus I'm in a class of historians and social science students... so my lingering fears of "I don't know enough, I have nothing to contribute" was completely gone... most have little knowledge of the art world.

The article assigned for class was by Peg Brand ("Feminist Art Epistemologies: Understanding Feminist Art"), and while reading it, all I could keep thinking was questions of intentionality. Many of the discussions of the process of "legitimization" for women artists in academia, culture, and history has a similar trajectory to music-- another comfortable familiarity for me. When Brand gets down to defining "feminist visual parody," she demands that for works to be feminist, we must know artistic intention and have knowledge of the subject matter in visual history.

And at first I thought that was limiting. The anti-intentionalist theorists would scoff. We shouldn't need to have all that information for us to know it is art. Then I realized  that we weren't asking questions of whether it was "art" but if it was "feminist." We began a short discussion of this article (to which I raised questions of intentionality), and then the professor introduced a short documentary on the "Quilt's of Gee's Bend." Women, since the Depression in incredibly rural Alabama, have created gorgeous quilts to keep their family warm. In recent years these quilts have been bought up by art dealers and shown in major exhibits all across the country. And so the professor asks us if these pieces are "feminist art." To which the class replied "yes." It was created by women who took it upon themselves to provide for their family by whatever means necessary. By using fabrics of their old worn out clothing, the women were writing their histories into cloth. I bide my time. Professor looks at me. To which I say. No. This is not feminist art.

And here is my argument. More articulate than I was last night. Which I type here because I think it directly relates to my dissertation material.

The quilts of Gee's Bend are not feminist art. These women did not intentionally set out to create "works of art." There is a practicality to it that precludes this. Women stated they didn't care the layout of the quilt; they used whatever materials they had. Sometimes, the quilts were created socially (women sitting around singing and sewing), while other times it was out of necessity (staying up until the wee hours of the morning so their babies wouldn't freeze to death). If I were a strict intentionalist, I would immediately say the objects themselves aren't art. Period. End of subject.

But typically I'm not an intentionalist. I think the quilts are artfully crafted, beautiful works. Except for when it comes to the term "feminism," I find myself more of an intentionalist. Feminism is an intentional act. Feminist scholars work to remedy the dearth of scholarship on women. Activist feminists protest. Women intentionally speak out. Feminists question the status quo. To be a feminist means an intentional call to action.

So I argue that the Gee's Bend women did not themselves create feminist works of art. But the ensuing activities of art galleries and collectors were feminist. If we are to live in a post-modern/post-post modern/contemporary world (however you want to term it), then most definitely the actions of those who saw these quilts can be classified as feminist. Jenny Holzer writes phrases in all capital letters and displays them on billboards in Times Square, and that's considered feminist art... because she intentionally set out to make a statement about women. That's what the art dealers/collectors were doing. They shed light onto an area of women's history that was previously unknown. They were trying to show the tenacity and strength of American women. The artistic establishment created feminist art, not the women themselves.

Now relating back to my dissertation. I think it would be too easy to say that I was looking for the feminists of fin de siecle America. Surely you can find women who you could interpret as feminists. Suffragettes, for example. But fewer women in a musical realm were thinking in those terms. It's almost anachronistic to say that someone like Rose Fay Thomas or Cecile Chaminade were feminists. Because they weren't. (Partially because the term in America wasn't readily used until the 1910s.) In fact they advocated women to remain within the home. They simply provided alternative activities to everyday housework. In formulating exactly what I'm trying to argue at this point, I'm completely leaving out the term "feminist." Perhaps it will work its way back in when I begin to talk about the ensuing musical culture that these figures of femininity created. But when speaking of the women themselves, as a historian, I cannot bring myself to characterize their actions in a feminist light.

What I'm doing... that's feminist musicology. But I'm not studying feminist history exactly. I'm studying women's history. Musical culture by women, for women. Takeaway point for me from last night's class: I don't think we should throw out the term "feminist" lightly. Feminism is an intentional act. And feminist art is consciously thought out.

Issues of "women's studies" courses

--Long disclaimer--
I acknowledge that people have different styles of learning and handling life situations. I also acknowledge that in any given classroom, professors have to work with a wide range of student abilities and levels of familiarity with a subject. At my university, I am cognizant that in order to meet student quotas, graduate level classes have to be open to undergraduates, masters students, and higher level phds. And I fully realize that the course I signed up for is entitled "foundations of women's studies" so I might not get quite as deep an analysis of gender as is possible.
--end disclaimer--

I'm done with women's studies classes. I thought the first course was a fluke, that this one based in philosophy would be better. I thought that taking from a sociologist might equate more theories of the interaction of gender in society. I was assured that this would give me the base knowledge I need to write an articulate dissertation.

But what I've found, at least at this university, is that regardless of the course or professor, students equate the field of women's studies to "let's talk about our feelings" or "let's vent about sexism in the media." I agree, the tradition of burqas in Afganistan is an interesting tradition. Yes, the super bowl displays gendered stereotypes. But I would really prefer we discuss the readings. The readings that I spend *hours* pouring over, writing notes and summaries to ensure I understand what a *sociologist from Australia* has to say about gender. [The book is problematic-- it's a 200 page literature review of gender in academic studies in the past 100 years, and it throws out so many theories per page, it's dense and very difficult to gain anything from.] I don't come to class to be asked "well what do you think about [insert vague subject from book]" and then have it lead back to someone's venting of life.

I'm here to learn about performative gender studies and to know the various scholar's theories on gender throughout history (preferably American but I'll not be too terribly picky at this point). I sign up for women's studies courses because I have a foundation in feminist musicology, but not in Judith Butler. I can't completely rattle off the waves of feminism's major players or dates. I am about to write a dissertation that postulates a theory of gender in music, and I'd like to have a groundwork in feminist theories. I want to go through all the philosophies of gender to make sure I'm incredibly articulate and considering all perspectives when I say these figures of femininity were performing their gender, exhibiting popular ideals of society for their female audience, creating a female musical experience.

I'm passionate about digging deeper because that has been my critiques (when I get them) from scholars outside of this university. That I don't have enough theory and philosophy to back up my claims. So women's studies department.... Let's talk about philosophy. Help me understand. No, thank you, I can read on various feminist blogs about the controversy with young girls and legos. And I do that all the time-- read feminist blogs. Every day in fact. But that's pop women's studies to me, and I am in need of something more. In my mind, a graduate level course should move past "this is how I feel as a woman, and things make me angry sometimes." Sure, an undergraduate class might require that sort of emotional release. Female students at that level need to be exposed to women/gender of various conditions. But if you are touting your course as for graduate students, let's move past emotion.

Now this post makes my class out to be the worst thing ever. It has opened my eyes to new theories on gender (by in large from the textbooks). And some of the discussions have been remotely helpful in expanding my definitions of gender research. It is a million times better than my previous women's studies course 3 years ago. But I still feel like I could have gotten all of this information from reading the textbook.

Must I continue to be self-taught in this field? Because I really don't have a problem doing so. I'd just prefer if people don't turn down their noses when I say that all that I've learned on gender I've had to read and process on my own. The first class meeting asked us to expand our defnitions of what is feminism. And consequently I readily accept that I am, in fact, a feminist. Musicologist, that is. I'm sorry America. I'm not the angry feminist you might want to box me in as. I don't scream out frustrations about the patriarchy. Because that's not going to do me any good. I am going to continue to try to grasp what it means to be an American woman in any era, and then apply that to my musicological research. My advocacy is not for the slut walks. It's for more female scholarship at the national conferences. And I'm going to continue to do my part. With or without this university's women's studies department.

Idol as resume builder

I was asked to answer a couple questions on American Idol and pop music today. One of them questioned how American Idol had changed popular music aesthetics, and I hold by my assertion that if you are looking at simply style and genre, Idol has had little impact on trends of popular music. Because of Idol's young contestant pool, especially in the first 5 seasons, singers rely heavily on their own musical idols to craft their cover song performance week to week (more on that in a moment). Therefore Idol hasn't reinvented popular music styles or even truly impacted any significant musical trends. It is the mirror to which we can see the trends of the music industry from year to year.
But if you look at method of musical dissemination, expectations of musical performances, a revitalization of the "American songbook," and the creation of a new generation of quasi-recognizable musical acts, then Idol has changed American musical society a great deal.

Without getting into my list above too much, I want to discuss the soundbite that didn't make it into the press release because I think one thing will "stand the test of time" longer than anything else when we talk about American Idol in the history books. The All-New Mickey Mouse Club that ran in the 1990s today is remembered for the stars it produced, both actors and singers. And I know Idol's format is inherently much different than MMC, but it is very similar in the amount of viable, competent singers that Idol has produced. 4 of the last 5 Super Bowl's national anthems were sung by former Idol contestants. Former Idols have gone on to win Grammys and an Oscar. They star on Broadway and series television. They become radio hosts and television correspondents. Idol allows musicians enough screen time to become a recognizable name. The weeks they spend on the show become a sort of resume for them, and more contestants should think of the show as not the quest to become a superstar (as the show was initially conceived), but a long running job interview. Through their intro packages and interview with hosts/judges, we get to know their personality. Their song choices show us the style and range of their abilities.

David Cook was the first Idol I heard speak of his Idol arc and conscious journey via song selection. He has talked about his purposeful choice to show diverse styles while still highlighting his singing ability. Adam Lambert similarly alternated fast and slow songs from week to week as a sort of concert set list. Idol contestants should break the mindset of "what song will get me through to the next week" and instead think "what song best exemplifies myself as a musical artist." Katherine McPhee can attest to song choices that follow them years later; her premiere in the new show Smash last night had her singing Somewhere Over the Rainbow, one of her highest praised performances that season. McPhee has embraced the Broadway bombshell belter box that Idol put her in over 5 years ago.

I think it can become incredibly difficult for these contestants to see the long game. Melinda Doolittle frequently mentions to Michael Slezack on their tvline show Idology that Idols second guess their musical choices, whether it be the song or simply how many notes to sing. When producers tell you that every week you set foot on stage could be your last, the desperation can lead less confident singers to constantly choose ballads and pour on the melismas. We have to think of the age range of these contestants 15-28; many are still working out who they are as people, let alone their musical sensibilities. Faced with an incredibly short time frame to practice and perfect a 2:00+ song every week, they rely heavily on previously learned songs whenever possible. Many contestants said they simply didn't have the time to rework their songs because they just needed to memorize the words. So some in desperation will also look to their musical idols to influence their style, and we see the loss of individual personality in the whirlwind of the Idol machine.

In the post-Idol world, those contestants who are compared to other musical acts frequently struggle to find gainful employment for a time (with Pia Toscano, aka Celine Dion/Whittney Houston 2.0, being the obvious exception). It seems to be easier in the post-Idol world for contestants who stand their own ground with their own distinct style. Kellie Pickler's home-grown country, dumb blonde charm has led her to hosting gigs and recording contracts. It hasn't been completely smooth sailing for Blake Lewis, but his beat boxing and techno aesthetic has translated to multiple dance club hits. Both Haley Reinhardt and Casey Abrams have been signed to record contracts; these contestants from last season both insisted on arranging songs the way they felt best and had quite a number of "toned down" performances, contrary to the typical idol style.

The Voice is an amazing spectacle. I'm still not completely sold on the show, but I appreciate one outgrowth of its shtick. That show sees many more seasoned performers, older musicians who have worked the menial jobs singers have to endure (empty bars, weddings, etc). Upon arrival on The Voice stage, these contestants are able to be true to their artists' aesthetic sensibilities because, well, it's likely they're quite stubborn and set in their ways. I don't like the stereotypical choices and pigeon-holing, but The Voice has a greater pulse on the diversity of musical genres permeating American society. As it stands, Idol still follows musical trends (rock artists emerging in the wake of a surge of rock music popularity and this past season, country/pop musicians being winner and runner up in our new Taylor Swift-ian world).  So if on Idol we could see more contestants being true to their musical aesthetics and not loosing themselves in the stress of the situation, then we might actually have a competition that can shape popular musical aesthetics. But regardless of bigger picture significations of Idol, I hope this season's crop of contestants can look at the bigger picture and give us a definitive picture of who they are as musicians. They can be so much more than just their voice.

why I do what I do.... gender and time

I'm taking a women's studies course this semester. My first formally theoretical look at gender through the eyes of a sociologist. While it's a step above my last gender class (taught by an art prof that turned into 'let's talk about our feelings as women'), it's still a little too topical for my tastes (burquas, female circumcision, birth control). I want to dive into Judith Butler people. Still I guess it's an alright "introduction" and survey for most, and I accept that this is really just a mark on my CV... yes I actually took women's studies courses, it wasn't all self-taught.

The one thing that has come out of this course (aside from my liberation from research papers.... I'll be doing a feminist art piece this semester instead), is that it has provoked questions in me of why I focus so much on gender as a scholar. I was raised in conservative West Texas. I should have the big hair, large turquoise jewelry, and have 4 kids by now (an image made painfully aware since my 10 year high school reunion is coming up).

The professor asks us about gender in our childhood, giving the anecdote of her playing football as a child. That dug up tons of memories and everything started making sense. Growing up in small-town football-obsessed Texas, you are taught from infancy that on Fridays you wear your high school team's colors. By grade school, every Friday has mock football games on the playground, with the girls *literally* in baby cheerleading outfits and the guys in little football jerseys. [If your parents don't costume you to the occasion, they'll dress you in a shirt of the proper color, frequently with your mascot emblazioned on it.] I typically played football... I wanted to be a center- in control of the ball, in control of protecting the quarterback. Solid in stature, steadfast rock of the offensive line. Quite symbolic actually..... So in second grade I asked my mother for a football jersey-- not the typical little girl request of a cheerleading skirt. It just now hit me that I never got one, and I asked mom last week why that was. Occasionally she would postpone my outrageous requests and I would get over such things. But she tells me that in this case, they couldn't find a jersey that would fit me. I was just a too tiny little girl. Oh well. At least I had the sentiment.

There were other tell-tale signs... After joining band in middle school, I decided that someday I'd be the first girl to join the cowboy band at a nearby small university. But even before grade school began, I watched He-Man more than She-Ra and enacted my "master of the universe" fantasies in my treehouse with my *male* imaginary friend. I wore dresses because that's what you do to church, and really I've never had a problem with dressing feminine when the occasion arose. But I'd much rather be in boots and jeans. And I still would rather not wear makeup. All the women in my family weren't overly feminine. All the women I looked up to were strong and fiercely independent.

So perhaps that's why today I focus on projections of femininity. I live for RuPaul's drag race because of the gendered language and dichotomies. I cringe at the thought of having a child someday and have to deal with color-coded baby showers. I love the idea of women who were doing somewhat subversive acts while outwardly appearing ridiculously feminine as to appease musical culture. (Think about it-- Jenny Lind, Cecile Chaminade-- women without children and real romantic attachments at their most public time of their lives-- were performing in large public concert venues for thousands of men and women-- in an era that demanded they go home and stay there to make babies.)


I want to see how other women negotiated being women. Especially since I can relate to women like Chaminade... I don't go out and do slut walks or perform in the Vagina Monologues... I'm not an outspoken feminist. But I find a way to manage my ideals of gender within the expected gender ideals of the era while still feeling true to myself. So then the next question is why I'm focusing on this time period. And this summer I asked myself why I was going to do a dissertation on the same time period and the same general subject-- gender in fin de siecle America, 1880-1930. And we return again to my childhood. I grew up watching Anne of Green Gables on the Disney channel. I was obsessed with the Titanic for a while. My mother loved Gibson Girls and had prints all over her art studio. So there we go. A theme and a time frame.


Moral of this post?? Our childhood defines us. Sometimes in good ways, sometimes not quite so good. But it helps shape what we become. Helps mold our beliefs for later in life. And I'm happy with the way this all (life, dissertation) has turned out.

in another life

As I sit in my coffee shop, trying to find the motivation to write up paragraph summaries of pointless sociological readings for my gender course, in walked a pack of band directors. I recognize a couple of them from my "previous life." When I entered my undergraduate career, I technically was undeclared as a major. By spring semester, I was a music education major. I was going to be a band director. That lasted about two years, but it was a natural progression. Band was all I knew; it was the consuming force in my life for all of middle and high school. All-district/region/area tryouts, marching competitions, solo and ensembles, concert contest, all-state solo & ensemble, band camp (at my current institution, ironically), and then summer marching band camp. These events came around like clockwork. I couldn't imagine doing anything else.

But after a torturous freshman and especially sophomore year with a couple of less than ideal situations on the musical front, I was less certain. Music history became the shining beacon that put me on this current path starting junior year. Still this morning with these directors, I think of what could have been. I could be one of them-- dropping off the kids for all-region rehearsals (which is all that I can imagine them doing here, it's that time of year) and making a beeline for the coffee.

In the end, I gave up on the band director life because I felt like it was too encompassing; to be a director, you loose weekends, Friday nights (football season), Monday nights (extra full rehearsals), most afternoons/early evenings to teach private lessons, and countless other times (booster meetings, uniform fittings, conferences, etc etc). I didn't love it enough. I love the idea of teaching, but the public persona required of a high school director is just not me. The larger than life inspirational force that is required was too daunting for me. It's also paradoxical for a perpetual graduate student to say that that parallel life path was too "encompassing" because my life is consumed with research. always. But there is more flexibility and less stress, in the end, at least for me.

In another life, I would be done with school. Never going past my bachelor's degree. Right about now, after 5 years of experience, I'd probably have moved up from junior high school director to a second or third assistant in a larger high school. I definitely wouldn't have a dog, nor a life outside of the band hall. I'd spend my spare time teaching the flute private lessons. I'd have had a killer flute section, with plenty of smaller ensembles competing at solo & ensemble. I'd probably try to have a woodwind quintet too-- I always loved playing that repertoire.

But instead I sit at my table, at my coffee shop. I take in this pristine winter morning, smelling the tea that has helped to focus me for the last 4 years. I let the warmth of the cup calm me down and focus me, and I dig into piano girls and feminist artists' epistemologies. And after about 5 hours here, I will return home to a puppy dog. We'll take a nap. And then I'll eat dinner with a friend at a little Korean restaurant. There'll be no concerts tonight, no long drives back home with exhausted band kids.

As much as I miss Grainger and Ticheli sometimes, I think I made a wise choice.



Quick note on the label of this post... I realized I needed a label to encompass my ramblings that weren't dissertation related, but that I write to get me started on research for the day. As per a quote mentioned here, the label I'm using is "diss squirming."