RECITAL REPERTOIRE FOR TROMBONE AND PERCUSSION

The solo trombone recital was once a rare musical event, but in recent years professional and amateur trombonists frequently present solo performances. The trombone has been around since the latter half of the 15th century and there is a wealth of ensemble repertoire, written for the instrument; however, there is no corresponding corpus of solo works. A small body of solo works does exist, from baroque sonatas and the alto trombone concertos of Leopold Mozart and Georg Wagenseil, to the romantic works by Ferdinand David and Nicolai Rimsky-Korsakov. This repertoire is small in number and a modern trombonist often has to resort to orchestral reductions and arrangements for modern performance in a solo recital setting. The trombone came into its own as a solo instrument in the 20th century and it is in this era where the bulk of a modern trombonist's repertoire resides. While there is now no shortage of music to choose from, presenting a diverse, yet musically cohesive recital remains a challenge though many interesting musical opportunities can arise to meet this challenge. While the piano is an extremely versatile instrument, pairing trombone with percussion opens up possibilities that are absent from the more traditional piano pairing. Percussion instruments can offer an almost unlimited variation of timbre and dynamics to complement the trombone. Dynamic range of the trombone must be considered as the instrument has the ability to play at the extremes of the dynamic range. Percussion instruments can match the trombone in these extremes. When presenting a recital of 20th and 21st century music, using timbre and dynamic range as selection criteria when planning the program are effective ways to bring a unique and intense musical experience to the audience. In this paper, the two considerations of dynamics and timbre will be explored and the need for a dissertation recital project will be explained.

The tithe: Public research university STEM faculty perspectives on sponsored research indirect costs

This study sought to understand the phenomenon of faculty involvement in indirect cost under-recovery. The focus of the study was on public research university STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) faculty, and their perspectives on, and behavior towards, a higher education fiscal policy. The explanatory scheme was derived from anthropological theory, and incorporated organizational culture, faculty socialization, and political bargaining models in the conceptual framework. This study drew on two key assumptions. The first assumption was that faculty understanding of, and behavior toward, indirect cost recovery represents values, beliefs, and choices drawn from the distinct professional socialization and distinct culture of faculty. The second assumption was that when faculty and institutional administrators are in conflict over indirect cost recovery, the resultant formal administrative decision comes about through political bargaining over critical resources. The research design was a single site, qualitative case study with a focus on learning the meaning of the phenomenon as understood by the informants. In this study the informants were tenured and tenure track research university faculty in the STEM fields who were highly successful at obtaining Federal sponsored research funds, with individual sponsored research portfolios of at least one million dollars. The data consisted of 11 informant interviews, bolstered by documentary evidence. The findings indicated that faculty socialization and organizational culture were the most dominant themes, while political bargaining emerged as significantly less prominent. Public research university STEM faculty are most concerned about the survival of their research programs and the discovery facilitated by their research programs. They resort to conjecture when confronted by the issue of indirect cost recovery. The findings direct institutional administrators to consider less emphasis on compliance and hierarchy when working with expert professionals such as science faculty. Instead a more effective focus might be on communication and clarity in budget processes and organizational decision-making, and a concentration on critical administrative support that can relieve faculty administrative burdens. For higher education researchers, the findings suggest that we need to create more sophisticated models to help us understand organizations dependent on expert professionals.