One for the History Books or the Trash? Changes in American Piano Literature

Since the eighteenth century, the piano has been one of the dominant instruments for musical expression. In numerical terms, only the symphony orchestra can boast a larger repertoire than the piano. Most of that vast amount of literature was composed during the nineteenth century. At the beginning of that century, technological advances allowed piano makers to add more notes to the instrument\u27s range and more strings to existing notes to strengthen the sound and timbre they produced. In its basic design, that of small hammers striking three strings each, the piano is a percussive instrument. The advances of the nineteenth century only reinforced that nature. But almost since its inception, musicians steadily ignored the piano\u27s percussive design and instead regarded the piano as an instrument that primarily produced beautiful melodies. ... Many composers attempted varying experiments with the piano, but four stood out as primary innovators. Though the sum of their ideas has been the principle means through which a change in piano literature has taken place, these four Americans used differing techniques both on and with the piano. Henry Cowell experimented with tone clusters; John Cage utilized a prepared piano; George Crumb used the performer\u27s own physical resources and manipulated the strings directly; Mario Davidovsky combined the piano with electronically-produced sounds

Making Time for the Library: Adventures in Integrating Information Literacy in the Curriculum

This presentation provided an overview of information literacy methods and practices for teaching undergraduate and graduate music students. It was presented at Joint Meeting of the Music Library Association and the Society for American Music in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania on March 2, 2007

Assessing the Energy-Efficiency Gap

Energy-efficient technologies offer considerable promise for reducing the financial costs and environmental damages associated with energy use, but these technologies appear not to be adopted by consumers and businesses to the degree that would apparently be justified, even on a purely financial basis. We present two complementary frameworks for understanding this so-called "energy paradox" or "energy-efficiency gap." First, we build on the previous literature by dividing potential explanations for the energy-efficiency gap into three categories: market failures, behavioral anomalies, and model and measurement errors. Second, we posit that it is useful to think in terms of the fundamental elements of cost-minimizing energy-efficiency decisions. This provides a decomposition that organizes thinking around four questions. First, are product offerings and pricing economically efficient? Second, are energy operating costs inefficiently priced and/or understood? Third, are product choices cost-minimizing in present value terms? Fourth, do other costs inhibit more energy-efficient decisions? We review empirical evidence on these questions, with an emphasis on recent advances, and offer suggestions for future research