XVI Colloquium: July 12 - 19, 2005:
The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC
"Discourses and Practices of Hegemony, Power, and Exclusion in Music Education"

Roll over Beethoven: Economics, Elitism, and Rock & Roll in the University Music Curriculum
David Bruenger
University of Texas, San Antonio

My presentation used the career of Chuck Berry and his song, "Roll Over Beethoven," as guideposts in an exploration of how the cultural and economic issues that made Rock and Roll controversial to society at large during the 1950s remain relevant in the academy 50 years later.

Rock and Roll's emergence in the mid-1950s was the result of a convergence of previously disparate musical styles, cultures, patterns of social migration, trends in media and technology, and a fundamental shift in the entertainment industry away from then "mainstream" content and production toward teen-oriented, independently produced content. Both a commodification and democratization of culture (particularly in its early years), Rock and Roll was the loud, crass, exuberant voice of the young, the ambitious, the outsiders (by virtue of race and/or class) demanding to be heard, and an indicator of just how much money it was possible to make from culture.

Roll over Beethoven, indeed.

While rock music has become a familiar and widely, if not universally, accepted feature of the contemporary musical landscape, it is also a flashpoint for concern in the music academy where it may be seen as a threat both to artistic and social values. Despite this, Rock and Roll surveys and other popular and commercial music-oriented classes have become increasingly common curricular offerings at many North American Universities.

The reasons both for resistance and inclusion in the academic curriculum parallel the societal response to Rock and Roll in the 1950s. The perceived threat to society and culture was not then and is not now enough to offset the enthusiasm of youth for and the indisputable profitability of rock music and classes about it. In academe this results in a reluctant inclusion of rock music in the curriculum and creates a dynamic in which more established, conservative faculty and departmental/program leadership limit access to such courses to non-music majors and relegate teaching responsibilities for them to low status faculty. Popular music classes are commonly seen as a necessary evil to placate administration or, at most, an opportunity to provide a cultural "upgrade" to the mass of students whose presumed preference for rock calls their taste into question. Rock classes taught in this context focus on teaching Italianate musical terminology, analytic vocabulary, and a viewpoint about musical value that is European-centered rather than approaching rock music and its social context authentically, on its own terms. It may be that this approach is not actually inclusion at all, but a de facto marginalization of the genre and those who value it.

On the other hand, in an era in which measures of accountability have become increasingly common -particularly fiscal accountability-Rock and Roll classes and those who teach them can have a major impact on the success of a music program. Assessing cost of instruction typically involves using the so-called break-even analysis, in which the cost of providing a given class is compared to the revenue it generates. While this has had very little impact on individual faculty evaluation to date, it is immensely important in the assessment of program effectiveness. By offering large, successful courses such as rock and other commercial music classes that students value, taught by tenured and tenure-track faculty, a music department can seize an opportunity to participate successfully in the economic system by which the university allocates its limited resources.

Since music-particularly high-culture music-has historically always required subsidy in some form, this idea is revolutionary only in the sense that it is an opportunity for musicians in the academy to take a page from the enterprising Chuck Berry (and other pioneering producers of early Rock and Roll) and generate their own subsidy while reaching a larger and more diverse audience, rather than remaining dependent upon the reluctant patronage of institutional administration that may have no direct stake or interest in the success of the music program.

The ramifications of adopting a more consciously economic view of music curriculum range from expanding the limits of musicological analysis (which typically eschews discussion of financial factors in the lives and work of the "masters"), to our understanding of how developing a quality rock class can connect with students we would not otherwise reach, to how the success of such courses creates a rationale for hiring new faculty whose interest in such classes will inevitably diversify the faculty culture, to the fact that revenue so generated helps all of us in the academy, including those struggling to maintain the heritage of our cultural capital, the European art music tradition. In addition and by no means least important, broadening our horizons in terms of curriculum and faculty interest can foster innovation and cultivate the cultural capital of the future.

Since many music academics were socialized to not only the cultural but also some of the social values of the upper class, discussion of subsidy, indeed of anything monetary, can be uncomfortable and may be perceived as inappropriate. A number of participants at the colloquium noted how readily group discussion moved away from the economic perspective.

Countering this tendency, Hildegard Froehlich raised the question of whether we develop self-serving programs more often than we respond to the needs of our students-a question I saw as essentially economic. Classical economics posits that individuals invariably act toward their own best interest as they understand it in the moment. This does not preclude the possibility of acting for the greater good. In fact economic theory is at its foundation a theory of social cooperation and an exploration of the means by which the needs of individuals and the good of society as a whole may be balanced.

Economic theory is, therefore an extremely useful tool for self-analysis as we consider the complex interrelationships between and among not only the cultural and monetary values of various musics that are included or excluded from the academy, but also for understanding our own motivations for participating in hegemonic transactions whether as the superior or subordinate party.

For me, the issues raised at the MDG Colloquium 2005 underscored the need for a more thorough consideration of our resistance to examining the economic aspects of our art and our teaching. It is clear that economic forces will continue to shape our opportunities in the academy, our unwillingness to reflect on economic theory or fiscal practice notwithstanding.