Quincy Jones, who died on November 3, 2024on the age of 91, was one of the influential musicians in US history.

One would think such a notable figure would play a vital role in America's music classrooms. Still My research shows that Jones, who was black, is never mentioned in mainstream US music curricula.

As Black music professorI consider his absence reflects the incontrovertible fact that music education within the United States remains to be segregated along racial lines, because the country has been for much of its history.

In 2020, music theorist Megan Lyons and I analyzed the seven most typical music theory textbooks for college students utilized in the United States We found that only 49 of the nearly 3,000 music examples cited were written by composers who weren’t white.

Quincy Jones, the person and the music

As a composer, arranger, performer and producer, Jones was a musician whose influence on American music can hardly be overestimated. He has won 28 Grammy Awards, he wrote several film scores and was instrumental in a few of a very powerful musical developments in America within the mid-to-late twentieth century, reminiscent of the rise of the jazz artist as a preferred music arranger. He produced the world best-selling album of all time: Michael Jackson's “Thriller”.

Jones was a trumpeter who began his profession in 1953 with bandleader Lionel Hampton, but soon moved away from music and have become far more than simply a sideman.

At an early age he performed with legends reminiscent of Count Basie, Dizzy Gillespie, Elvis Presley and Frank Sinatra and produced and arranged music for singing greats reminiscent of Ella Fitzgerald, Sarah Vaughan and Diana Ross. His turn to pop music within the late Seventies helped usher in a revolution of funk, disco and early hip-hop.

I see Jones as an important piece within the history of American music. Nevertheless, like so many others, he’s missing from music lessons Black artists throughout history.

This absence is leading an increasing number of music educators to acknowledge what my research has also discovered: American music education stays deeply rooted in an ideology that has dominated U.S. history – white supremacy.

Segregation in music

One of a very powerful cornerstones of American white supremacy was racial segregation – that’s, Keep whites and blacks separate. This racial divide has been evident throughout American history, including in music education.

Take for instance the incontrovertible fact that the majority of composers studied at American music institutions reminiscent of the Eastman School of Music and the Juilliard School, in addition to most major university music departments, come from a Western musical tradition and will not be American. I’m referring to Johann Sebastian Bach, Ludwig van Beethoven, Frédéric Chopin and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, in addition to a handful of other revered figures. These are all white, European men who died an extended time ago.

This is one reason why students who… Bachelor's degree in Jazz Studies In general, take classes completely outside the overall category from “Major Music”. Courses on jazz, a genre deeply rooted within the African American musical tradition, are sometimes not counted as core courses for music majors at many U.S. colleges, conservatories, and universities; Classical music courses do.

And in a recent twist on musical segregation, classical vocal and instrumental students are included at at the very least one college warned by their studio teachers to not sing or play genres related to Blackness reminiscent of jazz, gospel, blues or hip-hop, for fear that these styles would negatively influence their classical approach.

From the moment the U.S. Supreme Court declared segregation unconstitutional in its landmark 1954 ruling Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka Dominant white America has found latest ways to maintain the races apart.

In music, this manifests itself within the incontrovertible fact that the curricula are kept separate.

If you think that all pop musicians like Jones are banned from music classes, just google “the Beatles in music curricula.” There are countless university courses. The Beatles were has typically been studied for over 20 years.

The Beatles weren't even American, but they’re a part of the American music curriculum. And they were white.

Integration of music curricula

“American music academies,” as I previously wrote in The Conversation, “generally reflect the social norms of the day.”

And societal norms around race and racism are changing rapidly within the U.S., impacting a variety of industries, from fashion to finance.

So what might a relevant American music curriculum appear like?

I’d begin by introducing students to the primary great American musician, Francis “Frank” Johnson. Born in 1792, Johnson was a prolific composer, violinist and bandleader whose life and work are rarely studied within the United States. You shouldn’t be confused with him Frank Johnsonborn 1789, one other notable early American violinist and brass ensemble leader.

I’d proceed with other essential figures of the nineteenth century, reminiscent of the pianist from New Orleans Basile Barèswhose music filled American dance halls after the Civil War. Or Edmond Dedewho studied and lived in Paris, France for years before returning to his native New Orleans.

I’d direct your attention to the Broadway composer Will Marion Cookwho studied violin as a young person at Oberlin College and later with the celebrated virtuoso Joseph Joachim in Berlin. Or in regards to the conductor, composer and librettist Harry Lawrence Freemanwhose 21 operas are still remarkably little researched.

And I’d never allow my curriculum to go away out the vocal music of Margaret Bondsthe symphonic works of Julia Perrythe atonal music of Undine Smith Moore or the music theories of Roland Wiggins.

Although I've only scratched the surface, all of those musicians were African American – and I haven't even mentioned blues, hip-hop, Motown, rock or R&B artists.

In my opinion, black music and genres of music have had a greater impact on the course of American music than some other style or genre. For this reason, I consider that universities and music schools should integrate this music into their music curricula – and have it prominently and proudly.

From Francis Johnson to Quincy Jones, black music exemplifies the musical greatness that the United States can produce for Americans and the world.

After greater than every week of uncertainty over the congressional election results, Republicans appear to have done so gained control of the US House of Representatives — Solidifying the primary state GOP trifecta since 2017.

But the party's razor-thin majority poses further uncertainty for each Republicans and Democrats, as a single emptiness could tip the balance for power within the nation's Capitol.

That possibility has raised questions on a rarely discussed topic: the power of aging or ailing federal lawmakers to do their jobs effectively — and even keep their seats.

The average age of the 118th Congress in November was 57.9 years within the House and 64 years within the Senate. Next 12 months, greater than a dozen California lawmakers will likely be among the many 20 oldest members of the House; Starting with 86-year-old Maxine Waters, soon to be the third-oldest member of Congress, this list of Democrats includes Nancy Pelosi, Doris Matsui and John Garamendi.

Additionally, quite a few elected officials have disclosed cancer diagnoses or other serious health problems lately. Garamendi, who represents California's eighth District, was diagnosed with a rare blood cancer in July and started chemo-immunotherapy in Sacramento. The 79-year-old incumbent is returning to Congress for his ninth term after garnering support from 74% of voters within the Nov. 5 election.

There is currently just one approach to replace a sitting federal lawmaker who’s physically or mentally incapacitated but has not voluntarily resigned: a two-thirds vote to expel the member from either house, allowing his state's governor to carry a special election. That has This has never happened within the history of Congress.

More than 110 years ago, the seventeenth Amendment ensured that senators could possibly be temporarily appointed before a special election to fill a emptiness that will be declared even when a member of Congress dies or leaves office before the tip of his or her term.

But House members should not have similar transition options.

Federal lawmakers have sporadically discussed calls for a constitutional amendment that will allow the House of Representatives to fill vacant seats with temporary appointments, arguing that elected officials should have the opportunity to call a listing of successors to forestall delays of voters could turn it the wrong way up.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren, one in every of the Bay Area's most distinguished Democrats, is one in every of several advocates who argue that having a substitute plan is a matter of national security and continuity of presidency.

“It's pretty obvious that if you really wanted to decapitate the Democratic government, you would have to wipe out the House of Representatives,” Lofgren said in an interview with DC on Thursday. “I don't mind mentioning it because anyone with a brain who is a foreign enemy already knows this. It’s not a secret.”

Lofgren, 76, said the approach to prevent violence from being essentially the most attractive option for bad actors to vary the bulk within the House of Representatives is to amend the Constitution to create a path to revive Congress before one Catastrophe occurs.

There's a recurring problem: A constitutional amendment requires support from two-thirds of every chamber of Congress and ratification from three-quarters of state legislatures.

Lawmakers have previously sounded the alarm that Congress's narrow margins of power could possibly be quickly upended in a disaster like Sept. 11, the 2017 GOP baseball practice shooting, the pandemic and the Jan. 6 rebel. But as tensions cooled after each of those crises, initiatives to vary House rules on vacancies were downgraded or ignored by the last seven speakers.

While Democrats were in the bulk in 2019, Lofgren was assigned to the nonpartisan caucus Select Committee on Modernizing Congresswhich adopted 97 recommendations over 4 years to make Congress a more efficient and effective institution.

That list included a review of plans to have each member of Congress create a listing of possible successors. In the event of that member's death, his state's governor would choose an individual from this list to serve until the subsequent election – the identical idea discussed in 2001, 2017 and 2021.

Rep. Derek Kilmer, D-Wash., chairman of the committee that was disbanded last 12 months, said the chance that majority power could shift for months was “terrible.”

“And our reaction can't be, 'Well, that's never going to happen.' Or, 'Well, we'll deal with it when the time comes'” Kilmer said in September. “Because when the time comes, it will be too late.”

When it involves cancer or other serious illnesses, Lofgren hopes that every one of her colleagues could make a full recovery and return to work. But she also acknowledged that it was “no small thing” that many members of Congress were temporarily absent for health reasons.

“Especially with narrow majorities, death and disease could determine the majority in Congress, not the election,” Lofgren said. “You'd think people would want to prevent that too, but I think some (of the resistance) might be because people don't like to think about their own demise.”

Previous attempts to resolve the House emptiness problem and preserve government institutions have been met with outrage, even with substantive proposals for succession planning after Congress narrowly avoided disaster in September 2001. Lawmakers like Republican Rep. David Dreier were steadfast, viewing the thought as anti-democratic, despite safeguards designed to forestall one party from gaining a bonus through appointments and special elections.

There hasn't been a significant partisan fight lately, Lofgren said, but without consensus it's not plausible to achieve the required two-thirds majority.

The biggest challenge was getting anyone to concentrate.

“I could rant and rave and spend all my time on something (like a constitutional amendment) that isn't going to happen, but I'd rather spend my time working on things that have even a small chance of happening Lofgren said. “We’re just not getting any traction.”

Originally published: November 17, 2024 at 6:15 am PST

A distinguished environmental group on Thursday spoke out against plans backed by Silicon Valley billionaires for a brand new utopian city the scale of Vallejo in Solano County.

The Solano Land Trust, which has close ties to Bay Area environmental groups and works with state agencies comparable to the Coastal Conservancy and the Department of Fish and Wildlife, is urging county residents to vote against the project to rebuild town from the bottom up in November when it’s scheduled to go to a referendum to rezone 17,500 acres of agricultural land.

“A development of this magnitude will adversely affect Solano County's water resources, air quality, transportation, farmland and natural environment,” the land trust said in a news release. “The associated pollution will be harmful to both our community and environmental health.”

The California Forever project was launched in 2017 under the leadership of former Wall Street trader Jan Sramek, with financial backing from billionaire enterprise capitalists Marc Andreessen and Michael Moritz, LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman, and businesswoman Laurene Powell Jobs. Through its real estate arm Flannery Associates, California Forever spent five years secretly buying up tens of hundreds of acres of ranchland before suddenly sparking an indignant outcry amongst Solano County residents by filing a $510 million lawsuit against the recalcitrant landowners, whom it accused of conspiring to overcharge them out of “endless greed.”

Suddenly thrust into the highlight, the plan soon became embroiled in a broader controversy, with doubts and pointed questions coming from local and state officials to members of the U.S. Congress. Farmers against the project say it will destroy necessary agricultural products and a lifestyle that stretches back through generations of ranching families.

In April, California Forever, which has spent greater than $800 million to purchase greater than 60,000 acres, said it had collected and submitted greater than 20,000 signatures to county officials, excess of the 13,000 valid signatures it must get on the November ballot. Solano County officials say They will determine by Monday whether the supporters have enough signatures.

In response to the land trust's renewed opposition to the project, California Forever said in a press release Thursday that it was limiting its plan to 17,500 acres and considering it at a protected distance from sensitive areas comparable to the San Francisco Bay Delta and the Suisun Marsh.

“We propose a compact, sustainable community with no ecological habitat, on poor soils, and with low fire hazard, as shown by official state and county maps,” California Forever said. “Because of the poor soils, the entire 17,500 acres produce only $6 million in agricultural output per year – just 1.6% of Solano County's total $385 million production.”

Until this week, the land trust had deliberately avoided commenting on whether the project should go ahead. But tensions were brewing. Late last 12 months, Sramek and his wife donated $20,000 to the trust, and California Forever announced the funding at a town hall meeting and on its website, calling the cash a grant. The land trust's executive director, Nicole Braddock, denied in a message to her organization's mailing list that the cash was a grant — which could indicate the trust supported the project — and returned the cash. Sramek then responded with a response that California Forever posted on Facebook, accusing Braddock of defaming him, his wife and California Forever.

Even within the wake of that bitter public dispute, Braddock told this news organization in January, “The Land Trust has not yet taken a position on the project.”

Braddock said in a telephone interview Thursday that the choice to reject the project got here after careful evaluation and weighing the proposal against the trust's mission to guard land and water for future generations.

“The public is very concerned about the water,” Braddock said, noting that Solano County officials have said a brand new state water plan could the district's water supply is significantly affected in drought years. “The community is really concerned about traffic and the pollution that comes with it. The community is concerned about people coming from outside our community with a lot of money to buy land and decide how we should develop it.”

Braddock also objected to California Forever's designation of the event area as substandard land since it provides wildlife habitat, helps recharge groundwater and enables environmentally friendly agriculture. “We grow food there using only rainwater,” Braddock said.

California Forever said its project has already received commitments from employers and may also include the development of California's largest solar farm. The proposed ballot initiative, the corporate said, offers a chance to “upgrade our communities from Vallejo to Dixon and from Fairfield to Rio Vista.”

More than 75% of consumers In the USA it is claimed that a brand's logo is crucial identifying feature of an organization. This applies much more to luxury brands, as their logos are amongst essentially the most recognized symbols worldwide.

So luxury brands should prominently display their logo, right? Our current research suggests otherwise.

In 2023, fashion's biggest influencers and types took part within the “quiet luxury“Trend. This trend refers to a more reserved approach to luxury, where people prefer subtlety and quality over outstanding brand presentation.

For a visible reference, consider the billionaires from the favored HBO series. Succession. They select tailored, functional clothing that avoids flashy logos and exaggerated brand names.

---

This article is a component of Quarter Life, a series about issues that affect us in our twenties and thirties. From the challenges of beginning a profession and taking good care of our mental health, to the joy of beginning a family, adopting a pet, or simply making friends as an adult. The articles on this series explore the questions and supply answers as we move through this turbulent period of life.

---

The successor played a big role in reinforcing the trend towards quiet luxury. But the posh market has been changing for several years, partly because Millennials and Generation Z have gotten the important customers of luxury brands. These consumers demand luxury brands more sustainable and inclusivewhich contributes to the resurgence of quiet luxury.

---

---

The shift towards quiet luxury presents the posh fashion industry with a dilemma. Some brands like Balenciaga, Burberry and Louis Vuitton prominently display their logos on almost every product. Other brands, including Hermes and Bottega Veneta, concentrate on muted prestige as a substitute.

But what’s the correct strategy for luxury brands in terms of displaying their logos? Our findings suggest that outstanding logo ads often backfire and make brands appear inauthentic and fewer cool. This strategy alienates fans of the brand and potentially reduces its market share.

Prominent brand presentation

We've found that outstanding logo display discourages consumers from each purchasing items from luxury brands and sharing images of those luxury items on social media.

These findings applied in three distinctly different cultural contexts – customers within the UK, Turkey and China. On average, purchase intent fell by almost 19% and social media sharing decreased by 17% when logos were prominently displayed.

Many customers viewed luxury items from brands that use big logos as not being authentic or true to their roots. They also felt that displaying outstanding logos detracted from the brand's exclusivity, glamor and class. Our results show that when a luxury brand selected to make use of eye-catching logos, perceptions of authenticity and coolness fell by greater than 10% amongst British customers.

Our study also revealed one other unique finding. Research has shown up to now that customers who’re strongly related to a luxury brand are inclined to achieve this defend the brand whether it is rejected by social colleagues. However, we now have found that these same consumers react negatively when the brand uses loud displays.

Luxury brands are sometimes used to signal social class, prestige and upward mobility. Luxury fashion buyers due to this fact seek to precise their identity through these brands. But when logos are too outstanding, they undermine the coolness and authenticity of the brand and weaken the fan's desired image of authenticity and originality.

The quiet luxury revolution

Research shows that the connection between price and brand awareness has an inverted U-shape. Brands with lower prices use smaller logos and as the worth increases, the logos grow to be larger and more visible. At a certain price level, the presence of the emblem decreases and it step by step becomes silent.

But big changes are afoot in the posh fashion industry. And the minimalist, logoless style is making a comeback.

Experts imagine that the trend towards quiet luxury is sort of at all times related to this Financial crises. The global financial crisis of 2007/2008, for instance, led to a shift towards understated luxury in the style industry. Quiet, subtle designs took center stage quite than loud, ostentatious displays of wealth.

As people struggle to make ends meet throughout the current cost of living crisis, quiet luxury is resurfacing.

The dilemma of name awareness

However, not everyone avoids outstanding brand representations. Greater brand awareness is favored by wealthy upper-class newcomers often called “parvenus.”

Research suggests that these people prefer more visible logos to signal their status and join the old money elite. A parvenu could possibly be an artist or musician who has suddenly struck gold with their work.

Even individuals who will not be wealthy but need to climb the social ladder (“poseurs”) go for more outstanding brand representation. These individuals are much like troubled social media influencers who fake their fortunes.

So what should luxury brands do? They should rigorously consider their outstanding logo display strategy and its impact on the authenticity and coolness of their brand – especially among the many brand's most loyal customers. Otherwise, their rigorously crafted luxury brand image could suffer.

As it seems, a whisper can say greater than a scream.