But We Can: Johnny Manziel, Big Business, Ethics

I'm still all sudsy from my last diatribe about Miley Cyrus reactions...

Today, I'm really confused about the Johnny Manziel NCAA case as it pertains to the fairness of rules. In my previous post I questioned the racial relationship between outrage over Miley Cyrus and the lack of it for pretty much every other black female doing the same thing in the pop music industry (pop, hip hop, and rap alike). I think it's difficult to say what's going on. But if anything is clear, it's that there is an acrid insincerity present in how these situations are viewed and handled when it comes to rules societal (or organizational in Manziel's case).

I am amazed at the discussions and consequent decisions surrounding Johnny Manziel's investigation. Cliff notes version: The Texas A&M quarterback was being investigated for signing autographs in exchange for money. The problem is that NCAA rules do not allow athletes to receive money, gifts, or services for any reason associated with that athlete's association with their college team.

I believe that Johnny Manziel's case decision was too soft based on the current NCAA rules. That's the stubborn pragmatist in me. But I truly question the concept that it should even be considered a big deal in the matter of what is right or just. So what if a kid makes 10K in autographs? A lot of people our age have never seen money like that. Manziel may have, since his family isn't doing too shabby. Maybe it's the reason he got off so easy? Needless to say I've never seen a couple grand for signing my name. Reggie Bush hadn't. Terrelle Pryor never had seen money like that. Neither did Chris Webber. And these are young men we're talking about. Kids thrust into a world of fandom and celebrity that is incredibly overwhelming. These athletes are big deals. You stick them in a totally surreal situation and they are to resist the temptation to do better for themselves? And for what? The team?

College sports is so beyond the team.

"The team" could have been a legitimate argument 50 years ago. But teams are brands now. They're franchises, entities, corporations. These players aren't student athletes. They're athletes who go to school. You can tap dance around it however you want but that's the reality of college sports.

I think the entire issue of college athlete compensation needs to be reexamined and adjusted. Entertaining athletic stipends, allowing personal profit, etc. is a slippery slope. But the reality is that colleges make MILLIONS off these players and their images, literally:

That's Denard Robinson, former Michigan quarterback. Did he get money for this?

Nope.



The insincerity is in the message of the NCAA's rules. You cannot profit off of yourself, your hard work, your talents, your image, your name.


But we can.


Schools make tons of money on jersey sales, concessions, seats sold ($294 is average price for Notre Dame football ticket!), pictures, advertisements, twitter hashtags... the list goes on. And the player gets a degree? Degrees are great. I have one. From an awesome school too. But so do millions of other folks. These athletes do what millions of others can't do. Thus, something about this equation is just wrong. Recent laws guarantee players continuance of scholarship for those injured during activities related to their sport. That's about it. Yet it's entirely normal for big profit college sports to recruit students that wouldn't normally be able to get into some of the institutions they play for. That is, if it weren't for their athletic prowess. And while big name schools have made a concerted effort to individually tailor these players' academic paths for success later, the system often leaves these guys (and girls) high and dry. Of course there are plenty of highly qualified athletes that intellectually meet the standards for attending these schools. It's just that not every football and basketball player is a high achieving neurology major or pre-law student. But it is convenient for announcers and schools to highlight these kinds of players often.

So if the real concern is about players being distracted and fear of discord between teammates, then stop selling jerseys with their names on it. Stop putting their pictures on covers for video games and billboards. Stop deifying them. Quit making them celebrities. And if you refuse, get your scruples together and guarantee them something for their work besides a degree. Their work on the fields and courts isn't earning them good grades. But it sure does get them beat up. Guarantee them that all those concussions they get will be taken care of even after they're done playing for a team. The NFL just settled on a $765 Million resolution like this today. How about a graduation package, with real money, as a humble and deserved "thank you" and a head start for the real world?

Manziel-esque "scandals" have repeated over the decades to various degrees. They will continue to repeat. Yet no one has stood up against the Goliath that is the NCAA. The NCAA needs to handle its business before someone handles it for them. Every Goliath falls.

What Does the Future Sound Like?

As I'm getting into teaching more, I've been trying to incorporate technology into my practices. I use speakers, iTunes, video practice aids, Google sharing yada yada... But what about the bigger picture? The further we press on into this lifetime, the more unclear the relationship becomes between music and computer technology.

It started with music recordings, even before iTunes. Buying records. Then tapes, then CDs, all the way to iTunes 99 cent songs. Now most pop artists make their money on tour sales and merchandise than actual albums.

So what about us classical musicians? Most of us have never seen the day when Tubby the Tuba was topping the charts for record sales. Many of us only know what records are because of thrift shops. (Isn't there a song about those?)

Will the momentum of the digital age carry us to a place where it's normal for our performances to sound like this?  Streaming Internet Used to Play a Duet Between Performers

And if so, what kind of help or harm will this do to our fragile state?

The Metropolitan Opera has already ventured into this virtual world by broadcasting live performances at premiere movie theaters across the country. For a fraction of the cost (approximately $20) and all the latest audio advances at your disposal, you can experience world class art almost at the instant it happens. Educational institutions across the nation are now integrating this idea into their music programs. The University of Arkansas does it for every band concert it puts on.

Of course that brings me back to teaching. More and more people, even ones I know, are exploring the idea of providing private lessons via the internet. It started with Youtube and its seemingly endless database of regular people showing and teaching others how to do things such as cook, change oil in a car, tie a bow tie, etc. But now you can learn how to sing, to play guitar. Even still, with faster internet connections, live lessons over Skype and Google Video Chat are becoming common. There are even specialized websites (here too, and article on subject here) dedicated to the study of instruments with professional musicians as internet teachers. Music programs are suffering all over our Nation's school systems. Reasonably, music could be the next technological frontier. It seems extreme but in many states a student can complete high school courses almost entirely online. Of course, there would have to be real people teaching these courses. But what would the cost for that be? Cheaper labor? Higher quality learning? Less effective teaching?

On the one hand, the accessibility of all this is great. As internet connections move toward a ubiquitous reality, those who may not have geographical access to certain educational opportunities can increase their knowledge.

Music should be enjoyed by everyone. I believe that.

But as this digital force becomes more permanent, what is the trade off? Is the reaction an era of music with a distinct sound created by the lack of human connections? Does it feel colder or less connected?Don't get me wrong, talking with my mom over Skype is great since we live thousands of miles apart. But it's not the same as a hug. This concept is likely true when involving music in many of its facets (teaching, learning, performing). Yet brilliant musicians have seemed to achieve an element of humanity and authenticity using the very thing that simultaneously unites and divides us:


This is the Youtube Symphony's Grand Finale performance. It launched a project in which musicians auditioned by submitting videos. They eventually met in Sydney Australia to perform and rehearse together, lead by one of classical musics well-respected conductors, Michael Tilson Thomas (San Fransisco Symphony).

A more extreme example involves a project called Virtual Choir. It is the brainchild of Eric Whitacre (composer). He uses voices from around the world to create a completely original performance experience. Whitacre combines visual technology with masterful sound mixing with his own compositions.

An extremely, crazy, ridiculous example comes from the Coachella Festival in April 2012. Tupac Shakur, one of raps greatest artists, is resurrected. The hologram was made presumably using samples of the rappers voice but it was also programmed to interact with the other (living) rappers on stage for this "live" performance. The figures spent on this haunting project still remain secret but are estimated in the mid six-figure range:











We have to decide. What does the future sound like?

Miley Cyrus... I Don't Understand

Summer is basically over. I've been working a lot to get ready for school; teaching, practicing, reading... Then I hear from all these people I see everyday about Miley Cyrus. I had no idea what was so bad but I knew to be expecting something bad when I got to seeing it. So I watched it this morning...

Warning: This is a soapbox.



So I don't get it. That is, what is all this shock for? The video for her song is pretty scandalous to begin with. Then Robin Thicke (who I think is great) performs a song largely famous because it features topless women running around a video set for 5 minutes. Then to top it all off, the surprise appearance from 2 Chainz has about 20 girls on stage "twerking" (we called it popping in my day) in booty tight red jeans.

So why all the hate on Miley?

Is it because she used to be sweet? Is it only cool in the music video you watch but when it's live it's suddenly not? Is it because she's a white girl and her "disgusting actions" are something to only be expected and accepted from young black girls in rap videos and MTV VMA performances?  I'm not really sure what the answer to any of that is. But I have to wonder. I think everyone crying shock and disappointment ought to wonder. It is awfully disingenuous to be in shock about Miley Cyrus' performance if you've ever watched 5 minutes of MTV. The last Real World season I saw had a cast member offering a guy cast mate sexual favors on the 2nd episode. Besides this woman's or man's lack of tact or respect, MTV did little to make a viewers imagination work very hard. And that's because on some level, MTV has always been about what's new, what's edgy, what's salacious. MTV isn't PBS. Do you remember the show MTV show Undressed? How about Master P's Back That Thing Up? Come on, people! Nick Cannon has stuff to say, yet he's married to one of pop music's sex symbols... And she decided to get all sexed up long after her 20s. Just sayin. Brooklyn Decker is "too old for this sh*t" but she made her living posing seminude in magazines and on the covers of them.

I'm not saying that Cyrus' performance was some amazing piece of art. It wasn't. I'm not even saying it sounded good. Frankly, she's never been that great of a performer. But for Saturday Football tailgates and college parties, sure, she can bump through my speakers any day. For entertainment, she'll do. That's all it is. I just don't understand where this sudden and hard moral line has come from, both from celebrities and regular people alike. I mean, have you heard the words to Miley's song? It's about partying. What the hell else was a 20s something pop singer talking about when she said "we can love who we want to"?

Don't act brand new. You're not too old. You're not shocked. You're not even that confused. You're playing dumb.

The rules have to be the same for everyone. If it's really that bad, then good for you. Stop watching MTV. Otherwise, take your wishy washy morals somewhere else. Watch a music video at 4 in the morning. You'll wish that Miley Cyrus was the most "shocking" thing you saw.