Greg Howlett | Blog

Pianists seminars

Wed, 11 Nov 2009 13:37:35 GMT

I have really been enjoying the church pianists seminars I have been giving this year. It really helps maximize my travel time when I can meet with pianists on Saturday and do a concert on Sunday.

My goal is to do a lot more of those seminars in 2010. I have put up a new page on the site giving details. If it tweaks your interest, contact me or pass along the page to your music minister with a gentle nudge.

If you don't have many pianists in your church, that is no problem. Just get a few other churches involved. Many church pianists and teachers love to come to these kinds of events because they have so few options for learning how to get better.

Here is the page where you can learn more: http://www.greghowlett.com/churchpianistseminar.aspx

Tips for performances

Tue, 10 Nov 2009 14:57:07 GMT

Someone asked me recently what I found hardest about performing concerts.

It is not the music itself. Since I have recorded the music and have been playing it for a while, I pretty much know it by now (though I still make mistakes of course).

There are other things that make concerts challenging. One thing that comes to mind is the technical issues. There are a lot of things that can go wrong. All it takes is one bad cable to create a disaster. And because I travel with limited equipment, I depend on sound systems and sound technicians in the churches I go to. That creates a lot of pressure.

But by far, the most challenging thing about doing concerts is finding a way to connect with the audience. By that, I mean finding a way to engage your audience mentally, emotionally and spiritually in what you are doing.

I was watching YouTube videos this weekend of a very good Christian pianist playing offertories in a large church. He is a very flashy, technical pianist and on top of that, uses a lot of stage gestures to enhance his performance (such as moving his hands high above the keys when striking notes).

What I noticed though was the people in the choir sitting right behind him. They were staring into space, reading, and even whispering. For the most part, they were completely uninterested.

This pianist's inability to make a connection while playing very impressive music illustrates how complex this issue is. And a pianist hammering a keyboard is completely wasting his/her time if no one is interested.

Now, I can hear some thinking that a pianist is supposed to be playing to God rather than performing to an audience. Of course that is true to some extent, but while that is a popular thing to say, it does not really make sense. Obviously, musicians in church are performing for people as well as God. And let's not kid ourselves--playing the piano in church is indeed a performance even if some don't like that word.

So how do you connect with an audience. I am not an expert, but here are some observations:

1) Get off the high horse.
I have noticed that there are two kinds of musical performers. The first kind is a performer who observes what an audience wants to hear and performs accordingly.

The second has an attitude that they know better than the audience what the audience needs to hear. These performers believe that if they expose the audience to enough "quality" music, the audience will eventually get educated enough to appreciate it.

Now, you can imagine which way I lean on this. While I see both sides, I am more interested in engaging an audience than trying to change their tastes to match mine.

Does this mean I will play music that goes against what I believe? Of course not. But I am going to try engage people where they are and perhaps in some cases, stretch them just a tiny bit.

2) Observe the audience reaction.
With time, you develop a sense of how an audience is reacting to your music. If you can watch them, do so. Notice if they are attentive or doing other things.

Also, listen to the comments you get. Ideally, you will get comments that indicate that your music did more than just impress them with flashy technique. "How many hands do you really have?" is fine, but if you are really successful in connecting with an audience, some comments will be much deeper than that.

3) Study other performers.
YouTube is invaluable. Go there regularly and watch clips of performances and watch how audiences react to performers. With time, you get a sense of what works and what you should avoid.

As a concert pianist, I have an advantage over pianists that just play an offertory. I can adapt to what I sense from the audience and can go in different directions if I need to. For example, I remember a tough church several months ago on a Saturday night when nothing seemed to be working. I ditched my song order and brought up my daughter and her violin instead. That was what it took to make a connection.

The other advantage that I have is that I can talk between songs. Setting up songs with personal stories or testimonies is very effective. I usually use humor at different points to help out as well.

One thing I am very sure of is this. If you want to be effective in your music, focusing on just demonstrating good technique is setting the bar too low. I have seen this over and over. That seems to be especially true today. People are just not horribly impressed by flashiness. This is especially true if the performer does not come across as genuine.

In fact, the best advice I can give is to be genuine. If you give off even a hint of a fake vibe, you will have a very difficult time establishing the connection you need to be spiritually effective.

Harkness and jazz (Part 1)

Sat, 07 Nov 2009 09:50:20 GMT

I promised another blog post on Robert Harkness, the father of evangelistic piano playing. I am intrigued by what the church musicians of his day believed about the secular music that was being written at the same time. The music I am speaking of is jazz.

As I have mentioned before, it is clear that prominent church musicians from this time period had a love/hate relationship with jazz. Clearly, they associated it with depravity. They struggled with it for other reasons too. But ironically, playing jazz piano music and playing church piano music require some of the same skills (such as improvisation). And it is clear that the early church pianists including Harkness borrowed from jazz in some ways.

I thought it would be interesting to discuss jazz in this post. Many church pianists know little about it. They associate it with rhythm and very complex chords. Some consider it to be barely music at all and certainly not worth learning to. Others are just intimidated by it. In this post, I will discuss jazz in general and in the next post, I will discuss Harkness’ writing about it.

Defining jazz is not easy. If it is a genre, it has many sub-genres. But there are characteristics of jazz that are pretty much true across all of these sub-genres and those are the things I am going to cover.

Jazz is a Twentieth Century phenomenon that was largely developed by African-Americans. Jazz is not African (though it has African influence). Rather, it is distinctly American; no America, no jazz music. America provided a way for the fusion of African music with music of the Western tradition. Make no mistake about it; jazz is influenced not only by African music but also by Western music. In fact, many jazz greats were classically trained and were also great classical performers.

Jazz harmony is built on Western harmony; it is an extension of the Western harmony of the classical period. While modern classical composers were falling over themselves trying to avoid tonality, jazz musicians learned to use extended chords (chords with 9ths, 11ths, and 13ths) in ways that actually enhanced tonality. The extremely complex sounds associated with jazz harmony largely come from extended chords.

On the other hand, much of the rhythm of jazz is not Western in origin. The use of swing rhythm involves moving accents from the downbeats to off beats and even moving accents from the front of beats to the back of beats. This is done to create energy and movement (contrary to what you may have heard elsewhere, it has absolutely nothing to do with sex).

The use of this complex harmony and distinctive rhythm creates the sound that most associate with jazz. But performers know that the performance of jazz involves two bigger components.

Improvisation
Traditionally, jazz is largely improvised. Jazz musicians that are playing solo are completely free to do what they want with a song. Often, they will play a verse of the song so people will recognize it and then go off and play something that sounds nothing like the song.

Even in groups, jazz musicians largely improvise. They communicate with each other through the music and follow memorized chord charts so that they stay together. Watching a jazz group perform in this way is a remarkable experience. Good groups have musicians who are virtuosos that compose elaborate solos on the spot while being supported as if by magic by the other musicians.

Democracy
In traditional Western music of the classical tradition, performers are taught that they are to reproduce what a composer writes. In fact, they are judged by how closely their playing matches a score. In other words, there is a clear, single authority—the composer.

In jazz, the composer is only responsible for providing a framework (if that). The performers are free (and encouraged) to change whatever they want. In other words, the control shifts from the composer to the performer. Rather than one authority, every performer has the right to decide how the song should sound.

Many believe that it is no accident that jazz happened in America. America, with its distaste for aristocracy and love for democracy, created a political atmosphere for jazz. And the fact that America is a melting pot where Africans could come and be exposed to Western music created a unique opportunity for a new genre to be born.

There are a number of myths about jazz that need to be debunked:

Myth: Jazz is pop music (just like Country or Rock).

At one point, that might have been true. But the truth is that jazz cannot be called pop simply because it is not very popular any more (even the Christian music genre is much bigger). Nor is jazz mass produced like pop music is. Jazz struggles with the exact same waning popularity challenges that classical music faces.

Jazz is not like pop in another way; it is far more sophisticated. Jazz is art music just like classical music is. That is not to say that every jazz pianist playing in a hotel lounge is a great musician (just like every classical pianist not a great musician). But the top jazz musicians are world class both in their skill as well as their knowledge of music. Jazz musicians largely respect the classical tradition. And that respect is finally being grudgingly returned. Julliard for example now recognizes and teaches jazz.

Myth: Jazz is about dancing and sex.

It is true that jazz is good dancing music. That is because it typically has a very solid tempo and the rhythm creates a feeling of movement. But the idea that the rhythms and harmony are sexual in nature is unsubstantiated.

If you went to a jazz concert, you are not likely to see people dancing. You are likely to see older, well-dressed people actively listening to the music. In fact, the atmosphere is similar to a classical concert.

Myth: Jazz is just noise. It is too dissonant and is confusing.

It is easy for people that do not understand jazz to come to this conclusion. The reality is that jazz is extremely structured and requires an understanding of harmony that most musicians do not have. It is also true that the dissonance in jazz is an acquired taste. All dissonance is an acquired taste. But after listening to the thick chords of jazz for awhile, listeners grow to appreciate the complexity just like a person learns to appreciate other kinds of art music.

While jazz can be dissonant, it traditionally (not always) still follows rules of harmony from the Western tradition. In this, it is different from much modern classical music that is intentionally written (using systems like serialism) to break those rules.

I have no intention of addressing whether Christians should listen to jazz, whether Christian musicians should learn jazz, or whether jazz belongs in the church. In my opinion, those are issues of personal Christian liberty or in the case of corporate worship, issues for church leaders to decide. I am just providing a little history and perspective.

But in the next post, I want to contrast my perspective to that of Robert Harkness. To put it mildly, Harkness did not appreciate jazz, and he gives his reasons why. You will find it most interesting.

Minor chord substitutions video demonstration

Thu, 05 Nov 2009 07:55:55 GMT

Here is my first ever video blog post. Here, I play some examples of the minor chord substitutions I taught about in my last post.

If you don't see the video below, you can watch it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDD8JvJR-Sg

Minor chord substitutions

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:04:19 GMT

There are a lot of very clever things you can do with chord substitutions. There are numerous cool chords that are very complex and sophisticated.

But you don't have to get very complicated to greatly improve your sound. Most pianists would see a big improvement if they simply learned how to use minor chords. That is what I am going to cover today.

The three minor chords that you need to know are the ii, iii, and vi. These chords are diatonic, meaning that they naturally fit into the key. In other words, in every major key, if you build triads starting on each note in the scale using the notes that belong to the key, these three chords will always be minor.

In general, you can say that a ii chord substitutes for a V and a iii chord substitutes for a I chord. A vi chord often can substitute for a I chord or a IV chord.

When you use these chords, always add the minor 7th to them. For example, when I say ii, I really mean ii7. These chords sound much better as 7th chords than just simple triads.

So how can you apply these substitutions? Let's take the common I - V - I cadence and give some possibilities.

I                            V                                 I
I                           ii                                 I
I                           ii                                 iii
iii                           ii                                 I
iii                         V                                 I

With me so far? In a typical I - V - I progression, some of these will sound good and others will not. You will learn initially by trial and error but it eventually gets intuitive to pick progressions that sound good.

Let's take it to another level. Now, we are going to divide the length of these chords and do multiple substitutions. For example, let's say you have four beats of a I chord.

You could play two beats of I and two beats of iii like this:

I               iii

Or how about these?

iii            vi
I              vi

You could even do this:

I   iii     vi (play the I chord for one beat, the iii chord for one beat and the vi chord for two beats)

With a V chord, you could play this:

ii        V

This works wonderfully because it creates a ii - V - I progression. I instinctively change almost every V - I progression I play into a ii - V - I progression using this substitution.

Now, let's put it together. Here is our I - V - I progression again with some more interesting options:

I                            V                                 I
I                            ii              V                I
I        iii              ii              V                I
iii         vi             ii              V                   I
I     iii         vi       ii              V                 I

Now why does this work? It works because of the chord progressions being formed. Note how the chords move either in steps or down by a fifth. Those are natural movements and they sound great.

By the way, that is why you see iii - vi above but never vi - iii. The movement from vi to iii is down a fourth rather than a fifth.

Once you understand that it is the chord movement that makes it work, you will find that you can pretty much substitute any chord for any chord. For example, you can make these work too:

I                            V                                 I
I      ii iii          ii              V                 I
I           iii           vi        ii           V          I

Don't be confused. At this level, I am not thinking about chord substitutions any more. I am thinking about chord progression substitutions. I will discuss this more later.

Pick up any song and find a I - V - I progression (you probably will not have to look past the first few measures). Then try substituting some of these chord progressions. Don't worry if the melody note fits into the chord you are trying to play. Just play the chord and the melody note together and you will be surprised at how good it sounds.

Don't forget to add the minor 7th to every minor chord.

In a day or two, I am going to post a video demonstrating this with "Just as I Am". I will see you then.

Clip of the week: Tim Parton and "God's Been Good"

Sat, 31 Oct 2009 22:45:43 GMT

I love music that is simple yet sophisticated. We need more of that kind of music in the church. Here is a song that meets that criteria from Tim Parton, pianist for Legacy Five. I have known Tim for years. He is an outstanding pianist and a truly humble person.

Like I said, this song sounds simple but it isn't really. It is very, very well written.

If the video does not show up below, you can view here.

Robert Harkness - The man who pioneered church piano music

Fri, 30 Oct 2009 20:32:05 GMT

While I have been studying the history of the piano in the church, I have been struck by something that I find unsettling. I have been struggling for a few weeks trying to figure out how to address it.

Here is my dilemma. I look at certain musicians as heroes because they were pioneers. They created things that have been useful in the church for an entire century. But on the other hand, I have been flabbergasted by some of the things I have read. These things frankly do not make these men look like heroes at all. In some cases, they just look silly.

So how do you honor these pioneers while still being honest enough to point out their flaws? I am not sure, but that is what I am going to attempt to do in this post. Specifically, I am going to focus on Robert Harkness.

As I mentioned in a previous post, Harkness could probably be considered the father of the style of piano playing you hear in churches that still mostly sing hymns. This style is often called evangelistic and resembles a jazz style called stride. If you did not read my previous post discussing this style, you can do so here.

I mentioned before that this style is not my favorite but I have to admit that it has certain advantages. It is easy to learn and accomplishes what it is supposed to do. Its function is to support congregational singing, and with its big chords and sound, it does so rather well.

Harkness started playing for R. A. Torrey early in the Twentieth Century and was influential for decades. He published a series of lessons over the years that were eventually compiled into a book and published in 1941. I have a copy of that book.

I am fascinated by his opinions because it helps understand a different era. You can learn much about what was important to Harkness by noticing what he focuses on. It is clear he was passionate about these specific aspects of piano playing.

•   Memorization. Harkness says that “the musical student with a dependable memory is most likely to achieve success.” Many of the lessons in the book emphasize memory. I read somewhere that Harkness prided himself on having practically the entire hymnal memorized.

•   Interpretation.   In his short introduction, Harkness says that “mechanical playing must give way to the whole-souled interest of the musician.” He discusses this concept through the book often in terms of expressiveness and emotion. He was a big fan of rubato.

•   Technique. Harkness discusses technique from the traditional standpoint of one with classical training (which he had). His book is full of random exercises that are somewhat similar to what you might see in a Hanon or Czerny exercise book.

Now, on the flip side, I want to discuss a few problems with Harkness as a teacher and also with his philosophy of music. These are not very positive, but as I said before, an honest treatment of Harkness requires that I tell you both sides.

First, the book is weak on theory which is the foundation for improvising for those who do not play by ear. For that reason, it is not likely that anyone will learn much from the book and I would not recommend that you read it for that purpose. Harkness supposedly knew how to compose and he wrote 2,000 songs. You certainly would not know it by reading this book.

Second, Harkness says some things that are to say the least, inaccurate, and probably more on the just silly side. Some are perhaps excusable. For example, he makes the dubious claim that you can overcome the problem of small hands if you regularly soak them in hot, soapy water. We can give him a break on that one; he obviously wasn't a medical professional.

Unfortunately, it gets much worse. Harkness clearly did not understand the difference between minor keys and major keys. He makes a statement that 70% of the secular music played on the radio at that time was written in minor keys. I knew that was not even close, but found a study online that showed that during the period the book was written, the actual percentage was well less than 10%.

Harkness also claimed that sounds of the ocean, cats, donkeys, horses, birds, thunder, wind, earthquakes are all minor. He goes so far as to say that the “music of Niagara Falls is probably in the key of F minor.” Yes, he really did say that. (Lesson 26, page 111) For those of you that are not musicians, just know that this claim is ludicrous.

His point was that music in a minor key is of the earth, pagan, and wrong. I am not sure how he deals with the fact that God created all those things he claims make pagan music and the Bible celebrates God's nature without ever condemning its "music."

In the next chapter, Harkness goes from bad to worse as he discusses “The perils of jazz.” I am going to spend a whole blog post on that chapter because I consider it to be important. It is important for church musicians to understand jazz (many cannot even define it). They should know the philosophy behind it, the way it works, how it has affected church music, and why conservatives have typically reacted negatively to it.

One thing is for sure. If conservatives developed their dislike for jazz because of the influence of men like Harkness (and I think they did), it is time to reevaluate. Harkness’ opinions on the subject are racist and ignorant.

There is an important point that I want to make here. While I am not convinced that Harkness was a musical genius, that is by no means an indictment against all musicians of that era. There were numerous great composers in several genres during his time frame that really understood music. Rachmaninoff was performing at that time. So was Art Tatum.

I confess that this paradox confuses me and brings up some interesting questions. Exactly who has influenced our Christian philosophy of music and why should we listen to them? What other ignorance has shaped our philosophy? I will hopefully post some thoughts on that soon.

In the meantime, let’s appreciate Harkness for his contribution to church piano music. It is highly probable that none of us will ever develop a musical style that lasts even 10 years much less 100. Let's also be happy that God can use imperfect people to do great things. That means there is hope for us.

Last weekend in Macon

Thu, 29 Oct 2009 18:30:56 GMT

I have been meaning to give a brief update on my last weekend with the piano seminar at Mikado Baptist Church in Macon Georgia. While I have done seminars like this in the past, this was the biggest and longest (a full day).

First of all, a big thanks to Mikado and James Koerts for an outstanding job hosting the event. It was done first class. In fact, I am confident that people would have come just for the food because it was outstanding.

We had 41 pianists there ranging from teen students to teachers with advanced music degrees. I taught three lessons on the following:

* Adding 7ths to triads. (Understanding when to use the minor or major 7th and how to voice it into the chord.)

* How to play softly. (Ten tips such as avoiding doubling, open voicings, and minor chord substitutions.)

* Modulations. (I gave four formulas.)

The challenge in that kind of setting is that everyone brings a different level of knowledge to the class. It is hard to keep the more advanced students interested while not going over the heads of the more inexperienced students. There is no great answer to this problem, but I did the best I could. Hopefully, everyone learned something.

I also taught 2 masters classes and 4 private lessons. The masters classes are always fun. I am amazed at the talent. Georgia is full of very good church pianists. Even some of the younger students are already arranging great stuff. It is clear that piano students today are far more advanced than they have been in the past.

I am already trying to learn from this event and I hope to do many more like it. If you were there or just have thoughts about what you would like to learn in that kind of event, please post them here or let me know. I will probably try to work more practical topics in in the future such as congregational accompaniment and accompanying small groups.

On Sunday night, I was honored to do a concert a Mikado. It was a great time (at least for me).

And of course, if you are interested in hosting one of these events at your church, please contact me.

What does this teach?

Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:07:35 GMT

We get graded papers every week from our children. If all I looked at were the grades themselves, I would be patting myself on the back for raising 4 geniuses. But I have learned that looking at the grades themselves is a mistake because the grades are often wrong. At least I think so. I would love to get your feedback.

For example, last night, I looked at a math quiz one of my children took. The grade was 100.

But then I noticed that there were 16 questions on the quiz and my child had missed two of them. One of them was just a simple problem with one step that could only be right or wrong. The other problem involved multiplying two 3-digit numbers together.

So how can you get 100 if you miss two out of 16 problems? As I remember things, the teacher used to divide the number of correct answers by the total number of questions. Getting 14 out of 16 correct meant you got a 88. Even if you counted the multiplication problem as a multi-step problem where partial credit is appropriate, the grade should have been at most in the low 90's. (In my opinion, a problem like that should be either right or wrong with no partial credit.)

There was a potential to get 2 bonus points and my child got them. So, the grade should have been 90. If partial credit was given on the multiplication problem, the grade should have been around 93 or so. Certainly, it should not be an A, and most certainly not an A+.

So, where did 100 come from? The teacher took off just one point for each incorrect problem. The two bonus points offset those deductions. By the way, does this mean that a student missed every problem, they would still get a 84?

Now I have strong feelings about this kind of grading, and I am afraid to say it is not positive. What are we teaching kids when we give them 100 for getting only 14 out of 16 problems right? In my mind, that is conditioning them to be mediocre. It is conditioning them to be careless too.

And of course, I have to be the bad guy when I have to point out to my children that they shouldn't feel overly smug about good grades when they really didn't earn them. Those are not pleasant conversations, and frankly, it annoys me that I have to have them.

I don’t know what is driving grade inflation. It could be the parents or the schools or perhaps children are less intelligent all of a sudden (highly unlikely). But I do know that focusing on grades rather than what is actually being learned is a problem. The grades that children get before high school are meaningless. I am more interested that my children are building character and acquiring skills that will help them know how to learn.

When did this grade inflation start and is it warranted? What is driving it? And am I way off base? Please tell me what you think this kind of grading teaches kids.

Church piano music history: The background

Thu, 22 Oct 2009 17:10:11 GMT

Until the late 1800's, the organ was the church's primary instrument and the piano was considered a secular instrument unfit for church. That all began to change primarily as revivalists of the time, including R. A. Torrey, Billy Sunday, and Charles Alexander began to see the value of the piano in their services.

As the piano became popular, prominent pianists began to start formulating the style of playing that would work in church situations. Probably the first such pianist was Robert Harkness, pianist for R. A. Torrey. Influential during most of the first half of the Twentieth Century, Harkness published a set of lessons that detailed his style. These lessons was eventually compiled into a book and published in 1941.

I have a copy of this book, and it clearly shows that Harkness was instrumental in developing the style of congregational accompaniment that is still widely used today. The style is a variation of stride with big chords in the right hand and jumps between octaves and chords in the left hand. It is fascinating to me that Harkness taught pianists to play stride in exactly the same way I was taught in hymnplaying classes in college almost 80 years later.

So where did this style originate? Harkness was obviously influenced by two periods of American music--ragtime and the early years of jazz. The style of stride typically used to this day by hymn players is sort of a "sanctified" offshoot of these two styles. It lacks some of the rhythmic elements and is much less technical than either ragtime or early jazz, but the basic elements are identical.

With that in mind, I want to take this post to give you a bit of musical history about the period that Harkness wrote in and was partially shaped by.

The arrival of jazz was the result of a philosophical shift in America toward individualism. No longer were musicians interested in being bound by restrictive rules of composers. Jazz is about improvisation, meaning that the musician has the freedom to change virtually anything in a song. In other words, the power shifted from the composer to the musician. Or to put it another way, jazz is democratic.

To say that jazz musicians were talented would be an understatement. By the 1930's, stride piano was quite the spectator sport. Virtuosos improvised extremely complex arrangements like magic. Perhaps the best known stride pianist was Art Tatum, whom Rachmaninoff said "has better technique than any living pianist and may be the greatest ever."

For your enjoyment, here is a clip of Tatum. In this example, he is not playing stride, but it is still a good example of his technique. It is the only video I know of on the internet of Tatum though you can listen to many of his songs on Youtube.

Here is a clip of traditional stride from that era. Note the similarities and differences between this and traditional church hymnplaying.

Getting back to Harkness for a second, it seems clear that he had a love/hate relationship with popular (jazz) music. On one hand, he incorporated it into church piano music but at the same time, wrote a very harsh (though entertaining!) chapter in his book called "The Perils of Jazz".

Harkness also lamented that most church pianists could play classical music well but could not improvise (a common problem to this day). In that respect, jazz and church piano music are similar, because both required improvisation. And it is clear that Harkness took advantage of that fact as he developed his style.

By the end of the 1930's, stride was waning as a style in favor of more modern styles. But the church has continued its "sanctified" style of stride to this day. Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing is open for debate. I see pros and cons.

On the pro side, stride accomplishes what Harkness desired, which is to support congregational singing. It is also easy to teach and easy to learn.

On the other hand, stride just sounds a bit dated. And it is hard to play tenderly. We have all heard church pianists bang their way through "Just as I Am" in the traditional stride form. For reflective songs especially, stride needs to give way to something better.

I will talk more about Harkness in my next post on this subject. You will enjoy it...

Light posting and other news

Sun, 18 Oct 2009 22:26:35 GMT

I have not been posting as much as normal lately and there is a good reason why. I am just a bit overwhelmed. Here are the projects I am working on:

1) Big masters class at Mikado Baptist Church in Macon, GA on Saturday (35 pianists have signed up so far). I have some new concepts for this class so have been getting prepared. By the way, if you want to come to this, there is still time to register by contacting the church.
2) Christmas concert in December. I have never put together enough Christmas music for a concert. In fact, I have never really worked on Christmas music at all. So I am scrambling there. I am enjoying it though. A lot of of those songs really lend themselves to unusual ideas.
3) Piano-only hymns CD in 2010. All new music for this one.
4) Christmas CD in 2010.
5) More instructional DVDs. I am actually planning on getting up to 25 hours of video recorded in February.
6) Launch of SundayMusician.com. This will be a site that allows church musicians to interact and share with each other. I had hoped to get this up by the end of the summer, but that is obviously not going to happen.

Coming on on the blog:
1) I am going to be starting a series soon on the history of piano in the church. It is a fascinating subject in some ways as you will see.
2) Video blogs. I just got the equipment that will allow me to do high quality videos that I am going to be posting here. Videos will allow me to demonstrate things on the piano that are hard to explain just by writing. If you have ideas for things I should cover by video, let me know.

Objective Standards - Time to wrap this up

Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:01:58 GMT

Writing about this subject has been challenging and perhaps unnecessary. Musicians should primarily speak about music through their music. But because I have engaged in the music wars to the level I have, I need to wrap up some loose ends, let you know exactly what I think and then I can move on to some other topics I am itching to write about.

In the early blog posts, I discussed the fact that there are objective standards of quality. They are not easy to figure out but they have been discovered and canonized in a set of commonly accepted practices that have developed over history. I said that it is highly absurd to claim that all music is of equal quality or that a musician's contributions can be judged just according to personal preferences.

To those that say that only music of objective high quality should be used in church, I would refer you back to a post I wrote recently regarding the function of church music. Music of the highest quality does not necessarily function best in a church.

Let's move on to the idea of objective beauty. I reject the idea that there are objective standards for beauty. Beauty is largely subjective.

There is a big elephant in the closet that I have not addressed but will here briefly. Many already know where I stand on the issue of whether music communicates morality. I don't think it does in itself. There is no Biblical standing to suggest that and there is no research or study that suggests that.

I know that this goes against the beliefs of some conservatives, and I can only say to them that if they want to convince, they need to supply a legitimate argument to support their position. When they are asked for evidence, they invariably either fall back on the beliefs of badly mistaken philosophers of the past, trot out flawed and/or incorrect evidence, or just ignore the demand for evidence altogether. Today, it seems that the last option is the most popular.

That being said, I have much in common with the beliefs of those conservatives. I share their interest in protecting church music from evil influences. I am not a fan of much of what is happening in commercial Christian music.

And I would agree that while music does not communicate morality in itself, it can communicate morality based on the environment and society it is used in. And I think there are two clear principles that can be used by an individual or church to make choices about music. And I think the two principles are objective in themselves because they are Biblically based.

Appropriateness
Music clearly communicates in itself. Study after study shows that it communicates such emotions as fear, joy, sadness. So, it is obvious that music should be used appropriately so that it matches the message of the situation. That means for example, that march music is inappropriate during Communion.

Some may say that this example demonstrates bad taste more than immorality. That is probably true, but there are occasions where the use of music can be a means to encourage people to do immoral acts. Some claim that Hitler used music in this way.

What this means practically is this. If a church decides that a certain style is inappropriate for their worship, that is their prerogative. They may not be correct, but they certainly are within their rights to make that decision.

Association
If a case can be made that a certain style of music is primarily associated with ungodliness, a church or individual is certainly within their right to reject it. If they believe for example that rock music is associated with rebellion, they can and should avoid it.

That being said, churches and individuals that make these kinds of determinations based on either appropriateness or association are making them subjectively in most cases. For example, most people no longer associate rock music with rebellion. If a church still does, they are welcome to exclude rock music from their services. But they should be gracious toward those that do not agree with them, understanding that there is subjectivity in play.

Likewise, musicians should be sensitive in their churches to allow for subjectivity and not get bent out of shape if there are differences of opinion. It is not easy for us to do so. Often, pianists are among the most highly trained musicians in the church. If you find yourself in that position, I know it difficult to be told that your music needs to be changed by a leader with less music knowledge who is making a subjective decision.

But if a church is going to work, its members need to understand that subjective opinions are going to differ. Unity comes only when members unselfishly agree to put aside their preferences for others.

Likewise, as a concert pianist, I am careful to understand the lines a church draws before I do a concert there. Normally, the lines are clear. Sometimes, I cannot distinguish those lines without some probing. Recently, I spent probably an hour with a music pastor and pastor discussing what kind of music a church wanted me to play at an upcoming Christmas concert.

To wrap all this up, let's return to the question of whether music convictions are objective or subjective. The principles of association and appropriateness are objective (Biblically based). But the application is largely subjective. We should all be humble enough to remember that when discussing and interacting with differing opinions of what is right and wrong.

Mark Richt vs. college football fans

Sun, 11 Oct 2009 22:20:50 GMT

I grew up in Tennessee and became a passionate Tennessee Volunteer fan at an early age. We lived on a farm without a TV, but I remember walking through fields on Saturday afternoons fixing fences while listening to Tennessee play on a hand held radio.

As I got older, my addiction got worse. I am ashamed to say that I was one of those fans who would worry the entire week before a big game and would let a loss ruin the entire next week. I remember slamming down TV remotes and yelling at the TV in front of my wife.

Fortunately, I grew out of it. Today, I barely watch the games. As a matter of fact, I watched Tennessee play yesterday for perhaps the first time in two or three years.

I enjoyed the game because Tennessee destroyed Georgia (the place I live, and a place filled with passionate fans that unfortunately remind me of me ten years ago). I was reading the paper online today and noticed incredibly disturbing comments by Georgia fans about their head coach, Mark Richt.

I have always thought Richt is a good guy. He is a Christian who does not seem to lose his temper. He has also been successful by Georgia standards. My biggest beef with him is that he seems to laugh off the lack of discipline on his team. While Georgia has not won any national championships in thirty years, they like to strut around the field like they never lose. And Georgia leads the world in penalties per game, many of them being for unnecessary roughness and inappropriate sportsmanship.

I noticed today that Georgia fans are just livid about Richt. They are mad that he is too loyal to his assistants. They are mad because he does not lose his temper when things are not going well. And they are even mad because he tries to be positive after a loss. I saw where a few of them even indicated that Richt's faith was getting in the way of his coaching. One said that he could be either a preacher or a coach but not both. I wonder how many of these fans wrote these things after going to church this morning.

Some of the fans were saying that they felt that Richt does not show the fans enough respect. They believe that he does not like them.

Can you blame him?

Could it be that Richt actually understands that there are more important things in life than college football? Could it be that he does feel a little disdain for men old enough to be his father who let the actions of college students actually affect their life in any significant way?

My guess is he is a little tired of dealing with Georgia fans who frankly should be focused on more important things. He probably just wants to do a good job coaching and influencing kids and is frustrated that he has to waste his time pacifying 50+ year old children as well.

I am being hard on these fans. We all have our weaknesses and like I said, I was as bad as they are for years. I am glad to be free of that insanity though. I still watch football but very casually. In fact, it is my favorite thing to do on Sundays while catching a nap.

If you are a Georgia fan who is all worked up over their bad season, work toward a point where you can sleep through their games. I promise you will be a lot happier.

How church music functions

Sat, 10 Oct 2009 22:42:44 GMT

I have been reading a lot lately about the topic of American church music, and on an impulse, ordered Jubilate! Church Music in the Evangelical Tradition by Don Hustad. Written in 1980, it is relevant and interesting in its discussion of the history of church music with a special focus on American church music.

Hustad was heavily involved in church music through most of the Twentieth Century as a professor (Moody Bible Institute and Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) and as a organist for the Billy Graham crusades.

I am not thrilled with many of the books I read about church music. Many are filled with unsubstantiated, wild theories and riddled with errors. But this book is worth reading. It is balanced, well researched and yet accessible. You do not need to be a professional musician or a philosopher to understand it.

There is much to learn from the book, but I especially appreciated the way Hustad discussed the function of church music and contrasted it with the function of art (classical) music.

To understand the relevance of this to where we are today, you need to understand that there is a contingent within Christianity that believes that church music should ideally be art music. They believe that art music is humanity's best music and because God deserves our best, art music should be offered to God in worship.

On the other hand, another contingent believes that music should be accessible to everyone. Everyone cannot appreciate art music. So, this group believes that more simple music (folk or pop) is more appropriate for church. They are not so worried about what music is best but which music best works in a church.

Of course, this debate is not new. It has gone on for hundreds of years. For example, Martin Luther hated the fact that the church's music was inaccessible to most believers and he worked to develop hymns based on simpler folk tunes.

Hustad clearly values art music and does not mind it in the church. But he also understands how church music needs to function. Music has different functions in society. In some cases, it might be used for creating a particular atmosphere. In others, it might be used enhance the emotion of a story (in a play or movie).

The function of church music according to Hustard is to serve the purposes of God, particularly in the corporate expression of worship, fellowship and mission. And since corporate worship always involves a congregation of non-musicians, art music is probably not the best option for church music because the congregation cannot fully participate (in singing or even listening).

Understanding this distinction is important. If you believe, like Luther, that art music is not best in corporate settings, you have nothing to be ashamed of. That decision does not mean your music is inferior (though you will probably get that criticism from the high church crowd). It just means that you have different expectations of how you want church music to function.

There is much more to learn from the book especially about history (it is 400 pages with little fluff), and you can buy it used for about $5. You might pick it up if you are involved in church music.

Dealing with sharks

Wed, 07 Oct 2009 16:09:02 GMT

I know many of you read this blog for music only, but sometimes, I can't help but write about other things. One of my passions is entrepreneurship and that is what I want to write about today.

I have been enjoying Shark Tank, the currently popular "reality" TV show about entrepreneurs pitching their ideas to venture capitalists in the hope of getting funding to grow their companies. There is not much to learn from it because it is not in any way reality (I will explain that in a minute), but it is very entertaining.

I especially love hearing the valuations these entrepreneurs are putting on their companies (what they think their company is worth). I have to laugh because those valuations are almost always way too high. Every entrepreneur thinks their company is worth more than it actually is, and I am afraid that I fit into that category too.

As a person who has bought and sold companies and been through the process of raising money, I can tell you that Shark Tank is a dangerous place to be even if the show is not really realistic. Here are some things that these sharks do not want you to know.

1) A deal is not really a deal. The show wants deals to appear to be made, and they make it easy for the sharks to make offers because they do not really have to go through with them. The credits at the end of the show reveal that the deals close only when due diligence (research) has been done.

Because of this, sharks can make offers on the show that make no sense. No intelligent business person will invest money (even as little as $50K after talking to someone for five minutes). They will do research--verify numbers, check competitors, study patents, etc. This is where most deals fall apart. My guess is that most deals on Shark Tank never actually take place.

2) A shark does not want to work. Quite often, the sharks say that they want a deal and are going to provide their experience as well as their money. Not likely...

These guys are worth hundreds of millions. They do big deals and that is where their time is going to be spent. They are not going to spend significant time on a business where they only have a $50K investment.

Don't expect to hear from them after they give you the money. You might get an intern or someone else to give you a bit of help at least until things start going wrong. Then, you will likely just be abandoned.

What a shark actually wants is a quick flip. They want to make money without effort. That normally means doing only enough to get the company into a position to sell. In some cases, it could mean licensing an idea.

That is all fine and good if you have the same goals. But if you want the challenge of growing a large company, there will be conflict.

3) Giving up 51% of a company is an incredibly bad idea. If you give up 51% or more of a company, you have become an employee. You have no ability to control anything. If the shark wants to sell the company for a fraction of its value or even just shut it down, you have no recourse. You can literally lose everything you worked for along with every dime you invested.

I know that entrepreneurs regularly give up 90% or more of their company and sometimes walk away with hundreds of millions. But really, if you can possibly avoid going down that road, you will be happier for it.

4) The sharks almost can't lose. You may have noticed that Shark Tank has been showing a few success stories of entrepreneurs from earlier shows. They now have their products on QVC, can't keep up with orders, have 1000% growth and so on. But the sharks are likely not the reason for the growth--the free exposure on TV drove it.

Imagine making a deal with a shark where he gets half of your company for $50K. The next week, because of your publicity, your business jumps by a factor of 10. Still want to do the deal with the shark? Of course not; the shark has just acquired half your business for almost nothing because the valuation was based on the numbers before the show.

This built-in publicity may help you but it helps the sharks more. I would almost recommend that if you go on Shark Tank, determine not to take any deal unless it is at least what you asked for. Then do something memorable so people will remember you and cash in on the publicity.

That is it for "all" of you who are going to be on Shark Tank...

Guess who said this?

Mon, 05 Oct 2009 19:03:33 GMT

Guess who said the two things below? (Yes, you can Google them but don't spoil the fun.)

"perhaps some will wonder at my undertaking to write about music...at a time when music has become almost an arbitrary matter, and composers will no longer be bound by laws and rules, but avoid the names of school and law as they would death itself . . ."

"I will not be deterred by the most passionate haters of study, nor by the depravity of the present time."

This sounds like a common criticism of the music of the Twentieth Century from the traditionalists both inside and outside the church. And clearly, there was a lot of rule breaking during that century, accompanied by a shift in authority shifted from the composer to the performer. And no doubt, there was a lot of depravity too.

But these quotes do not come from the Twentieth Century. They go all the way back to a man named Johann Fux, a traditionalist during the late Baroque era (early 1700s). Fux was an admirer of Palestrina, who composed during the 1500s, and he apparently thought that modern music was lawless and rogue. I do not know who he was referring to for sure, but Bach was prominent at the time and the Baroque era was giving way to the Classical era (Mozart was about to be born).

It is amusing to me that the music that traditionalists today consider ideal (Baroque) was itself under attack from the traditionalists of its own day. This trend has existed through the history of music. Traditionalists have a history of rejecting innovation. But eventually, the music they reject becomes the "new" traditional music.

This is why I have said many times that if we as traditionalists are going to reject music, we need to have a solid reason for it. The attitude that music cannot be good because it is not what I am used to or does not follow my rules stifles healthy innovation. And our music is better off because the traditionalists lost those battles centuries ago.

But that is not to say that traditionalists are fools. For example, Johann Fux's writing is still used in universities today, and Bach was a traditionalist who was no slouch. (He was considered old fashioned by his peers toward the end of his life.)

These are complicated issues. I wish I had this figured out but I don't. We probably need a balance of both traditionalists and progressives.

Something worth reading

Sun, 04 Oct 2009 21:29:38 GMT

I know you have all read stories like this, but I still thought I would pass this on. It speaks for itself really.

http://www.ajc.com/sports/atlanta-falcons/ex-falcon-qb-spent-154254.html

Macon piano seminar coming up on October 24

Sat, 03 Oct 2009 12:50:29 GMT

On Saturday, October 24th, I will doing a full day seminar at Mikado Baptist Church in Macon, GA. I have done these before, but am trying some new things in this one that I am excited about.

There will be three sessions and two masters classes. You can play either your own arrangements or other arrangements in the masters classes and get some feedback from myself and James Koerts, another recording artist who (unlike me) has a lot of music published.

The sessions will be on the following topics:
1) Essential theory for church pianists. The basics to understanding the language of the way I teach improvisation. If you find yourself reading my posts and getting lost, hopefully this session will clear some things up.
2) Quiet (mood) music. If there is one place church pianists need help, this is it. I will go over 10 simple things you can do to help your quiet music. This is music that is played under communion, prayers or during the invitation.
3) Four formulas for modulations. Every church pianist seems to want to learn how to do modulations. When you leave this session, you will have four formulas that you will help you.

You can also get a private lesson with me that day and I will be doing a mini-concert at the end of the day.

I will be doing a full (solo) concert the next night (Sunday) at Mikado as well.

You can learn more and sign up at http://www.mikadobc.com/templates/_mikado/details.asp?id=38620&PID=719594.

I hope to see you there.

Piano tip - Using the minor iv chord

Thu, 01 Oct 2009 16:42:06 GMT

In a recent post on "Silent Night", I used a minor iv chord. I have gotten some questions on it, so I want to discuss it a bit more. This chord will give you a beautiful sound and is worth learning.

My guess is many of you have used the minor IV chord before, normally as a triad, and often at the end of a song. It is quite common to hear a song end with a I - iv - I cadence. It adds a bit of interest and is effective if it is not overused.

With time, you can learn to utilize this chord in other places in your music. Here are some rules to help you.

1) Do not just play a minor triad. Add notes to it. The most common note that is added is the 6th. In the "Silent Night" example, I use it where the melody note is the major 7th of the chord. It sounds good with other notes as well.

However, do not use this chord with the minor 7th added. That just does not work.

Most of the time, you will see the chord written as iv6. Get in the habit of almost always adding the 6th to the chord even if you are going to add other notes as well.

2) A minor iv6 wants to resolve to I. Since I and iii are functionally equivalent, it also resolves nicely to iii. I like to resolve to iii as much as I can because it just seems smoother somehow.

If you see a I chord, you can often insert a iv6 in front of it. So you are in effect turning a I chord into two chords: iv6 - I. Or, if you are hanging out on a I chord for a few beats, you can turn the I into I - iv6 - I.

Remember how I said that a I chord and a iii chord are equivalent? This means that if you have a few beats of a I chord, you could play iii - iv6 - I or I - iv6 - iii

That is just the beginning of the things you can do. Notice in the example from "Silent Night," I changed 4 bars of a I chord to I - iv - iii - ii - V7 - I. There are all kinds of combinations that will work there. You simply have to come up with progressions that work with the melody notes.

Thanks for the help

Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:37:22 GMT

Last week, I asked you for help in my research of the history of Christian piano music. I have been very pleasantly surprised that many of you have exactly what I need. Several of the books I would like to read are rare and expensive, but I am grateful that many of you are loaning me your copies. Two people offered me that rare course from Rudy Atwood. I was amazed.

Someone kindly researched the subject for me at a college library and sent me a helpful paper that got me on the right track of building a list of relevant books. They have already started arriving and I feel like it is Christmas.

I want to get into this more before I start writing so I can speak with a bit of authority, but I do plan to do a series on the history of piano in the church. I have a feeling many church pianists would be interested in this subject which is not discussed very much.

But here are some teaser facts that most of you probably do not know.

1) Until around 1900, the piano was considered an inappropriate instrument for church. The piano was used in the big revivals around the turn of the century, which brought about their eventual acceptance in church. As late as 1930, there was criticism of the piano in the Methodist church.

2) The style of hymn playing still used today actually developed very early in the century and has remained practically unchanged until this day. I received an old course this week published by Robert Harkness, who was probably considered the first good (great) church pianist. In the course, Harkness teaches such methods as moving the tenor to the right hand, doubling the melody and playing chord, octave patterns in the left hand. He also taught the left hand runs that were so prominent later on in Rudy Atwood's music.

In other words, he taught exactly the same things I was taught in my hymn playing classes in college almost a century later.

3) I am very interested in the relationship between jazz and church music from the early days and have wondered what those church pianists thought of jazz. It is an interesting question because "stride" (the basic style of hymn playing) was the common style used in jazz during the same period Harkness was developing his methods. I was thrilled to see that Harkness wrote a chapter on jazz in the book I received. I am going to hold off on discussing it for the moment, but you will be most interested when I do.

Here is a quote from Harkness about popular music that you might enjoy:

Many of the requirements of a performer who merely executes what another has written. But if he interprets successfully, he should not soil his hands on what is commonly called "popular music"--music devoid of natural expression, worthless stuff that should be buried.
(From The Harkness Method of Evangelistic Hymn Playing, by Robert Harkness, page 52, copyright 1941)

As you can see, he was a man of strong opinions.