the Wakefield Doctrine

the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers

the Wakefield Doctrine ( CSR 101 )

leave a comment »

     Ok, class, let’s settle in… what’s that, Janie? Substitute teacher? We don’t need no stinking substitute teachers. Oh, right… the old “look into my eyes” bit… next time, Jane, just scream real loud, kick him straight in the bollocks, and call 911.  Jeez, if a Clark got you, you’d end up babbling about string theory and where the donut shops are in the fourth dimension for the rest of your life. What?… you already know?? He bought you two chocolate-frosteds with jimmies that don’t really exist, and a large decaf ( because caffeine was outlawed ages  ago in the “real” universe?)Jane! Jane, look at me!! No, not over my shoulder!!! Jane, you’re fading! Come back….come back….Jane…. come back…. Oh, hell. I just hate it when that happens. Another one tanked… All right,then. As for the rest of you, let’s pick it up where we left off….

     OK, then so who can tell me the difference between the WD and the BSO? ( see last class’ post ) Anyone? Anyone at all? No? Jane? ( camera pans to Jane, who is staring out the window and trying to do calculus on her fingers ). Ok, forget Jane. She’ll be out there for a while yet.

     That was a trick question! The answer is…there is no difference. Well not much, anyway.  Back in your seats, let me explain…and someone please grab Jane by the ankle, she’s apparently discovered mutli- dimensional weightlessness , and the window’s open…I think that’s due to the jimmies that don’t exist…Hey, do people outside of Rhode Island know what jimmies are? I had Del’s and clam cakes for breakfast, is that weird?

     Ok, enough. Back to work.

     The WD/BSO comparison actually struck me as being a good example of the WD on a big, big scale. Macro. Freaking huge. We generally assume the WD to be all about interpersonal stuff ( by the way, great job AKH- and a comment fron Denise that could easily be expanded into a few posts; yeah, that’s a hint, Girlie!). But seen on a larger scale, it actually works quite the same way. Let’s have a look;

                              The Wakefield Doctrine                                                                                                The Boston Symphony Orchestra

     Clarks- internally active, cerebral                                                                         Work Being Performed                                         

     Scotts- socially outward, good salesmen                                                          Conductor; co-ordinator/ interpreter

     Rogers- detail-oriented, socially inclusive                                                     Orchestra; Strata/sub-strata of specialists

      Well, there it is. Self-explanatory, yes?   No? Ok, then, let’s break it down a bit.

     To have the BSO function properly, there is an absolutely overwhelming level of coordination that must be maintained on several critical levels, all simultaneously. If anyone drops the ball, then the end result is percieved as a bad performance, a lousy conductor, a mediocre orchestra. In their world, that’s simply not going to happen. In reality, the actual difference between a first-rate orchestra and the others is probably very slight; the margin for error is almost non-existent.

     The largest grouping in this setting is comprised of the players themselves, and my analogy labels them as Rogers. Every damn one of them. They’re highly trained, highly skilled, supremely confident. They aren’t just great classical musicians ( a phenomenal accomplishment on its own), they’re the top percentile of those guys. They simply do not screw up. They are all machine operators. And, what amazes me the most about them; they do what they do, and  manage to stay focused on the conductor. Who, BTW, in this analogy…

     is a Scott.  A perfect salesman, he has full knowledge and complete, utter control of everything before him. He embodies all the player’s capabilities. He knows every nuance of what they can do, and uses that knowledge to interpret the music; he does a lot more than just keep everyone in tempo. He is using the big machine to make known the wishes and intent of the composer. He sees all this at a glance, and simply needs all the Rogers to be perfectly precise on his command. And, in this last segment of analogy, the composer is…

    the resident Clark. The guy who creates the entire thing in his head, and desperately needs a few good Scotts and a damn lot of Rogers to get the thing out to where the public at large can access it. He knows all of it. He has to consider the interpreters along with the machine operators; make sure that it gets out there the way he wants it to. Bach? Beethoven? Mozart? Just a tiny little bit eccentric, yes? No freaking wonder.

     And if all that works just like it’s supposed to, then we get to hear …the BSO. Or put in WD terms; if all the Clarks, Scotts and Rogers all read one another correctly and fairly, then the world should be just ever so slightly a better place than it was before.

     And since I’m in the mood, may I recommend ; Henry Gorecki’s Third Symphony. It starts with a repeating figure on bowed double bass ( one of my favorite instruments) and develops it into a hypnotic theme. It doesn’t really have a sense of time or tempo to it, it just hangs in space like the soundtrack to a prophetic dream. Gorgeous. Give it a shot, binyons. A little high culture won’t kill your asses. And someone wake Janie up, it’s time to shut the lights off.

ON THE NEXT POST: I have no idea.





Written by clarkscottroger

January 17, 2010 at 5:48 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: