Listen to Interview

Q: Today I am very pleased to be talking to Professor S. Eliot Breneiser of the Department of Music at Old Dominion University. First question I wanted to ask you Professor Breneiser, could you tell me about your background and your career before you came to the Norfolk division of the College of William and Mary in 1951.

A: Yes. (Clears throat) I was… the previous teaching position that I'd had was at the College of Wooster in Wooster, Ohio. And I taught piano there for three years. And before that I had been in graduate school and in the Army. I don't know how much detail about that you want.

Q: No - if you can just say what graduate school.

A: Well I went to graduate school for a Masters of Piano in California at the Claremont Graduate School and then after I'd taught in Ohio for three years, I went to Eastman for a Masters in Theory.

Q: Did you do any - play any instruments in the Army?

A: Well I had played a little bit of French horn without any lessons when I was in college and somehow that got into my Army records and they tried to get a band going. And called me for French Horn and I got out of it as quickly as I could. (Laughs) I did play the field organ a little bit as a chaplain's assistant.

Q: Why did you accept a position at the Norfolk Division in 1951?

A: Well I must confess that I didn't know anything about the Norfolk Division when I applied for jobs that year. Jobs as you may know because of the Korean War were scarce that year. I made a good many applications and I got favorable responses here at Norfolk and also at a school in New Mexico. And I interviewed down here and in spite of the somewhat primitive conditions here I saw some chances for growth and development and also the job was one, which suited my talents better than the job in New Mexico. I was offered both jobs simultaneously and decided to come to Norfolk.

Q: When you assumed your duties in Norfolk what were your most vivid impressions of the Music Department and conditions of the college in general?

A: Well obviously from the standpoint of physical facilities the first impression is that the college was in a primitive state. Particularly when it came to the Art and Music Departments. They were both in the famous shacks, which were one story barracks buildings. The music one has since been burned down by a student pyromaniac (laughs) and we had one piano in the Music Department. That served all purposes that was used for classes, for rehearsals of the choir, for my piano lessons that I taught and everything else in the department. On the other hand, favorable impressions I think the impression of the people here was one of a great deal of community spirit. People - it was a very small, very family style institution and the people worked extremely well together, I think, and there was a feeling of being accepted into a group when I first came here.

Q: Did the students exceed your expectations in regard to talent?

A: Well I wouldn't say so for the simple reason that I didn't have any specific expectations. I just came here prepared to find what I would find and to deal with the students that I had. The student body was very small and particularly so in music. I had classes as small as two or three on occasion. Many times the classes were so small that I taught overload in piano in order to relieve the financial problem of small classes. So it was very, very much in a developmental stage as far as the size of the department was concerned. And there was a mixture of talent. There were some students who probably shouldn't have been in a music major and then there were some students with some really reasonable talent and some who eventually went on to let's say to graduate work later.

Q: Could you discuss your initial involvement with Opera workshop?

A: Well the workshop when I first came here was initiated by Charles Vogan. And he was the director of it for several years and so I was not in any capacity of … of directing the workshop itself or anything like that. I was actually a jack-of-all-trades. I accompanied rehearsals in good many cases. Some- -sometimes I was the accompanist for our performances when we had no orchestra. Other cases I was the pianist in the orchestra. I made posters I even had parts in a couple of the operas and particularly did some coaching of some of the singers and that is a polite term here at least for teaching them their parts. And also prepared choruses for several of the productions. So it was really just a quite wide diversity of duties.

Q: Did you become involved with the Feldman Chamber Music Society shortly after you settled in Norfolk?

A: Yes, I was- -I attended the Feldman concerts of course and was much interested in their work. And then I was asked to play for them- -with them on a couple of occasions within a couple of years after I was here. I played a composition by Martinu in 1953 and then again in 1955. I played on one of their programs.

Q: Do you especially recall a program given by the Feldman Chamber Music Society to celebrate the three-hundredth anniversary of Jewish music in America?

A: I confess I don't remember that- -that occasion. I remember playing on the program in 1955 - I played a piece by Prokofiev, which emphasized Hebrew themes. Even though Prokofiev is not Jewish. But I don't just- -my memory doesn't serve me and I don't remember the anniversary program.

Q: Did you give many recitals at the college or in the community during your early years at the college?

A: Yes. Of several types. I played on what you might call general faculty recitals - I would play one or two works on a recital, which was composed of several different faculty members. And then I gave a couple of solo recitals and … (pause in tape)… the Freshman and Sophomore music theory courses and that at first included the (irtran???) aspect of them. I also taught rudiments of music course designed particularly for non-majors. And then I taught the evening appreciation course.

Q: Why did you choose to remain at the College [ODU] over these years?

A: Again I think basically for the same reasons that I first took the job here. Although I obviously - like many people - kept contact with the job market for some time after coming here. Nevertheless I saw continued evidence of chances for growth here. through the fifties things were in a stage of gradual growth and also because the job suited my particular talents. I felt that I did well in the work that I was doing here and so saw no particular reason to head elsewhere when I was making good progress here.

Q: Was the Music Department faculty a harmonious group with which to work?

A: Yes, I would say so. Very much so. You're speaking I gather of the - in the fifties in the early years. And it was very much so. Again it was part of the attitude of the whole institution which was that it was small, family-style faculty and one in which everyone was anxious to see it develop into a more significant and eventually independent institution.

Q: Was the Department of Music in the 1950's democratically administered?

A: I don't think that's a question that I can answer directly. I would say that things were too informal to speak of its being democratically administered in the sense that we now speak of it where we have faculty committees within the department to take care of things. There were no departmental committees as such. The Music Department probably was a staff of anywhere - well when I first came it was two of us. And expanded within the fifties to perhaps four or at most five within the fifties. And so there was not a reason for a formal quote democratic organization. It was just that things were done informally.

Q: What role did you play in the development of the Madrigal Singers?

A: The Madrigal Singers were started by Charles Vogan in 1951. Which was the year that I came here. And three years later in '54 he asked me if I would like to direct them. And I had never done any choral directing before and I said well I was I'd give it try. I did and just stayed on the job and did a lot of learning on the job and have basically developed them into the group that they are today… building on the start that Dr. Vogan gave them.

Q: What kind of music do the Madrigal Singers present and what was the group's function in the Department of Music program?

A: The Madrigal Singers starting with Dr. Vogan's first year with them were in this area - I would say a pioneering group. Because they were the first group to do any Renaissance vocal music in this area. There were no madrigal groups in other institutions as far as I know around the state, nor in the public high schools. Now every high school has its madrigal group. But at that time no one was singing Renaissance music here and Dr. Vogan started out with a diet of madrigals and I continued that to keep an emphasis on Renaissance music including then some of the sacred music. Mass and Motet literature as well as beginning a complimentary emphasis on twentieth century music because twentieth century composers often turn to that small medium as sixteenth century composers did. And as far as the position of the group in the program the Music Department is concerned, it was one of our chief public service or contact groups. We did a lot of singing for civic groups and have continued to do so over all of the years. Sometimes ranging as high as twenty-five programs for various groups within a year. And that was -- we also gave concerts on campus of course. But I think it's most valuable function was that contact with the community -- and we went as far field as well let's say the Eastern Shore and we went - we sang for state meetings of music societies as well as singing for local civic clubs, churches and that kind of thing.

Q: In a performance in 1962 the Madrigal Singers wore costumes for the first time. In view of the chronic shortage of money in a Music Department I wondered how you were able to obtain the proper costumes.

A: I can't claim that were proper costumes at the time. They were very, very basic functional ones and we did indeed do it on an extremely slim budget. The seamstress was my wife with a little bit of help from me. And we scrounged the material for the costumes out of some small fees that we occasionally got for singing for groups that we performed for even though we didn't ask for a fee sometimes they would give us ten dollars or fifteen dollars and we collected that and bought material as reasonably as we could. A year or two later actually a more professional looking set of costumes was made for us by a faculty drama department wife who was a really fine seamstress of costume type clothing. And again we did that on a minimal budget. She used scraps and remnants bought on sale and this kind of thing and did for a surprisingly small amount of money. Again taken out of money that we had earned through singing rather than coming from basic college funds.

Q: Were the Madrigal Singers performances well attended?

A: Yes. I would say so. Taking that in the perspective of general attendance at musical events in Norfolk, which has always been slow to develop. We had relatively small audiences but for the type of music that it was, I considered them good audiences and in general we were well received even though the music was esoteric as far as our audience is concerned- even when we sang for audiences off-campus. Our audiences grew gradually 'til in the late '60's early '70's we were attracting nearly a full house in the Tech Theatre.

Q: Did the press deal fairly with the Madrigal Singers in its reviews?

A: The press, musical press, in Norfolk has always been an interesting question. Actually we were not often reviewed in our concerts on campus here. We did sing for seven years in the Norfolk Arts Festival and there were always reviewed and in general quite favorably so I'm… I would have to say - hope that that was fair. we got occasional reviews when on campus and the Madrigal Singers were always treated favorably in those reviews. That doesn't necessarily indicate that I think that the reviewing in the newspapers was always of really competent caliber however.

Q: Do you recall a special performance by the Madrigal's in 1964 at the Norfolk Little Theater to celebrate the 400th Anniversary of Shakespeare's birth?

A: Yes I do well remember it. We sang a group of Elizabethan Period madrigals. There is almost no - none of the Shakespeare text that was set by his contemporaries that we can unearth. But many of the texts that were used were very much of course, in the style of some of the things in the dramas of Shakespeare. And so this singing of music of his contemporary musicians - several of whom probably knew Shakespeare - was very appropriate to the Little Theater performance which included, by the way, some poetry readings by the head of the English Department here on campus at that time - Dr. Stephenson - he read from some of the sonnets of Shakespeare on the same program. And then there were the Virginia Beach Recorder Society performed on the same program.

Q: In 1965 you gave a pre-concert lecture on Beethoven, Wagner, Chopin, and Tchaikovsky before the Women's Auxiliary of the Norfolk Symphony. Did you often give such lectures?

A: Not often in terms of several times a year but from time to time over the period of years since 1965, yes, I've given lectures for the Symphony Auxiliary as has for instance Charles Vogan from the department here.

Q: Did you deliver many lectures to civic groups and professional groups?

A: Yes, again not many in terms of great frequency but over the period of time for a good many different organizations -- AAUW, DAR, music - local music clubs, Tidewater Music Teachers Forum -- that type of group. More of my contacts with the community were however in terms of the ??? Madrigal Singers and also in terms of such things as a series of TV programs that the University initiated in the - it would have been fifties - there was a series of programs sponsored by the college here and occasionally on that series we would have music programs, and I was frequently involved in those. And then another aspect of my involvement with the community then was in judging of music contests such as the Lions Club Scholarship Contest and that type of thing.

Q: By the mid-1960's did you believe that the Music Department had made significant progress toward achieving its goals or was it falling further behind as the rest of the school developed?

A: I feel that the Music Department itself was solidly achieving goals in terms of the caliber and quality of the training we were giving our students. Our students when they left here to go to graduate school let's say, invariably accepted on their music work on the basis of placement tests which are usually given at the graduate level in music. Without being put back to ??? classes which is a fairly frequent experience in music - so that our basic undergraduate preparation was very solid. We graduated competent performers on various instruments I think with a special strength in the keyboard area. So that those which we understood to be our goals--- we I felt we were achieving solidly. As far as fast growth is concerned - perhaps not. The growth in the Music Department has always been steady, but slow. There are some obvious reasons for that. It was difficult for the college and then university here to establish a name for itself for one thing. Funds were slow in coming for facilities, which again influenced whether some students came here or not. As far as another goal is concerned our service to the community - we were heavily involved through such things as the Madrigal Singers and the choir and our participation in the TV series and that kind of thing, and that was a prime goal of the department too.

Q: At the Sixth Annual American Music Festival in 1965, the Madrigal's sang two poems by Emily Dickenson put to music by senior music student, Herbert Watson. Can you recall Mr. Watson and this performance?

A: I can well recall. Mr. Watson was a very talented student - in addition to his composition talents he was a fine clarinet player and then he was the first student in the department to do really professional performance on the recorders that we had recently bought here. The compositions that he did displayed a good deal of imagination and were quite well received by the audience and also well reviewed incidentally. That was one program that was reviewed and there was a favorable review of them. Watson is still in the area by the way, he's playing recorder and doing other work with the Williamsburg, I guess, foundation - or whatever it's called - up in Williamsburg. Anyhow he's with the Colonial Williamsburg and still involved with music with the recorders.

Q: In 1965 you were elected to the newly created faculty senate. What role was the senate designed to play at Old Dominion?

A: Basically the same role as it has now. And that was to express the view of the faculty and, and in that case specifically the faculty on matters of policy in the institution. I think the faculty felt that until the senate was instituted, that there was not an enough faculty voice - not enough opportunity for expressing faculty voice in any kind of an organized fashion to make recommendations on university policy - or college policy then. And that was its prime goal and it felt that it was needed to express or to give recommendations as to policy in all kinds of areas similar to those for which the basic committees of the University senate now are established.

Q: Would you say that the old faculty senate achieved its goals?

A: Yes, but imperfectly. That is again- I think that it failed to carry the weight that the faculty felt it should carry in terms of its recommendations. And therefore, it was a question as to whether they were accepted of course, because it was not a controlling body - it was a recommending body as is the present senate -- so that I would say yes, but imperfectly.

Q: What was the Webb administration's attitude toward the faculty senate? Did open communications exist?

A: I believe the Webb administration has some of the same basic ambivalence toward the senate, as is often the case. That is that in theory the administration wanted advice, wanted faculty opinions on policy matters, but on the other hand, had some fear that its own prerogatives might be pre-empted. Or that the faculty might get too - be feeling too big for its britches. There was communication, but it was not always smooth communication at all. There was one for instance - there was a time where there was a hassle between the administration and the senate as to press releases from the senate. The administration was sensitive about any releases being made to the press before recommendations had arrived at the administration, etceteras. I would say the communication was mixed. There were many direct contacts and some letters back and forth between the President Webb and the senate, but the communication was not always well understood or free.

Q: In the early 1960's the Music Department moved into a new building - the Fine Arts Building. Now this building has been rather roundly criticized over the years. What were the disadvantages of the Fine Arts Building to the Music Department?

A: There were basically three, single large disadvantages. And they were large indeed. The acoustical problems of the building were severe when we moved in and are still very significant in terms of making our activities difficult. There were such really absurd design features as a partician which came up to a window between two studios and left a dead air space between the partician and the window of about two inches, so that there was perfect sound communication between the two studios. The sound was communicated through the ductwork as well as through the walls and around the walls. So the acoustical problem was really very severe - we have renovated some of it ourselves and the rest of it remains in an insoluble problem. The second problem was the atmospheric condition of the building. It was built for air-conditioning, but the air-conditioning was never available because of cost. The amount of air circulation is limited so that a fair air exchange doesn't really take place. The practice rooms get really insufferably hot and stuffy so that the total atmospheric conditions of the building both summer and winter are very poor. They have been remedied to some extent with use of window air-conditioners but the interior practice rooms which have no windows are still 85, 90, and 95 degrees in the summertime and its very hard practice condition for the students. The third limitation for the Music Department was a rather severe limitation on space, particularly rehearsal space. There was a room upstairs designed for rehearsal but it had extremely bad interior acoustics, very low ceiling and not adequate space for the performing groups to grow in size.

Q: Now I'd like to ask you some specific questions about controversial issues which came before the faculty senate in the late 1960's, and we'll take these up one at a time. First of all, where did you stand in 1966, on the question of a ban on certain speakers on campus?

A: That of course was a subject of a great deal of debate and not unified opinion by the way in the senate at all -- and a good deal of tension between the senate and the administration. My stand was simply that it was inevitable that we had to have a freedom to hear speakers. Much as we might deplore the attitudes or the viewpoints of some of the speakers, there simply was no end to the matter of making decisions as to who could speak and who could not. And so it was as simple as you have to leave a policy - which is very wide-open as far as speakers are concerned.

Q: And secondly, how did you react to the proposal to censure students who threw eggs at anti-war demonstrators?

A: I must confess, I draw a blank on the actual incident. I don't remember the incident of the eggs nor of the proposal to censor the students, but I think I would have joined in a censure. I- - again I - the anti-war demonstrators were not always well behaved in their demonstrations and yet, throwing eggs was not what I would call a university type of response.

Q: And thirdly, where did you stand on the question of lifting the ban on SDS -- Students for Democratic Society publications?

A: Again, as on the speakers question, I - my vote was on the... for lifting the ban on the publications. And again I had not - I wasn't without reservations because I was not happy with some of the editorial policy, editorial comments of the SDS publications. But again in the matter of censorship you begin and there is no place to stop and it simply uh is not acceptable in an educational atmosphere to prevent people from expressing their views. I have had a long wish ever since the sixties and the SDS publications that student editors would be freer in their acceptance of advice from advisors, faculty advisors as to not only quality but tone of publications. But then you can't have real freedom without leaving them to decide what they are going to say.

Q: And fourthly, how did you feel about the proposed student bill of rights in 1968?

A: I would put myself in the group who felt that a statement of the students rights was very much needed, and along with that, a statement of student responsibilities. And again the events of the sixties drew both into focus - both the need for rights on the parts of students which often had been given little thought before, but also the need for student responsibilities to accompany those rights. I think I felt that a statement was necessary and I certainly remember the long, long senate meetings running two hours each for three weeks in a row, if I remember correctly, on the one issue in the spring of I suppose '68 or '69. And then again continued in the next fall. I also remember just as a way of expressing my own position in the debate on this, I was what I might call a moderate, looking for some of the compromises that would bring a viable document into being. Compromises on both the side of the students and of the university. And I can remember the bitter statements of a certain of the students when the document was finally passed, that, it was no document at all simply because they had not been able to get every point that they wanted. And my feeling was that a worth while document was one which had been hammered out and that it was one, and that it had involved a great deal of compromise which I felt was essential to the process.

Side One Ends

Q: And the fifth question on an issue from the 1960's that takes up quite a bit of space in the records of the senate, what were the issues raised in the appeal of Mr. Rollin - Rolla H. Knuckles for issuance of his contract for 1969, 1970?

A: My records aren't available for that and I haven't had a chance to check back on them to refresh my memory. But my memory says that the basic issues were these… those of, in his case, the department chairman, I believe, failed to follow the right procedures in the first place. And second, that he failed to give the proper notice according to the college calendar - according to the principles that we had at the college at that time for notice on issuance of contracts. It was not in his case an issue of the problem that he presented - and there was a problem presented. But it was a matter of the proper handling of the... his contract.

Q: On what committees of the faculty senate did you serve?

A: On the Welfare and Grievance Committee and Drafting Committee of the old faculty senate. There was a committee which took proposals from the other committees and put them into a finally drafted form. And I was chairman of that and I was on the Welfare and Grievance Committee. Then in the university senate, I was on the Welfare and Grievance Committee and then chairman - I've forgotten - two or three years.

Q: What were your duties as vice-chairman of the senate?

A: The - I was vice-chairman of the old faculty senate as well as secretary of the old faculty senate and then I was also vice-chairman for a semester of the university senate. In the case of the faculty senate, the duties of that position were very little as most vice-chairman and vice-president's even of the United States (chuckles). I did chair a meeting or two in both cases and in the case of the university senate, the - let's see - no the vice-chairman was not a member of the executive council. I was a member of the executive council in another capacity. So the duties were very little.

Q: Did the campus ??? in the late nineteen-sixties have any impact on your music and on your relationship with students or colleagues?

A: I would say very little affect on music - on the Music Department as such, or on my relationship with students in in the music area. For the simple reason that music being a professional program calls for a special kind of devotion on the part of the students. And a professional kind of focus, and I was not conscience of the ferment in that respect. I would say the results of that ferment however, now show in music students as they do in all students. I think student attitudes towards intellectual discipline, academic discipline are very much different than they used to be and I think this is found in all departments and music department is no exception in that respect. I found no real difficulty in my relationship with students in the department or with colleagues because of that. I can't say that it affected that. There may have been some difficulties in relationship with students on the campus as a whole, in the senate etceteras, but I think that here at Old Dominion, the ferment was so much milder than it was in most of the country, that it really-- did not really compare at all.

Q: What affect did the change in administration at Old Dominion University in 1969 have on the Music Department?

A: One immediate affect was due to Dr. Bugg's thinking on the status of applied music in the department. He felt that applied music was not getting enough hours of credit to justify the amount of time that students spent in applied music. Now this had a spreading affect because it we had to institute more hours for applied music, we had to fit those hours into the programs of the music majors - of all the different programs for music major. And therefore it caused a major revision of all the music major programs. I think that was the most immediate and largest effect. A second effect was I believe that Dr. Bugg had received negative impressions concerning the Music Department from some people outside of the university before he even took his job here. And I believe that that conditioned his responses to the department to some extent so that it was difficult for him to see the caliber of some of the work that the department was doing. In addition, I believe that he had some definite ideas of his own as to the nature of the service of the department, which did not take into account some of the talents or expertise of the department, and so I think there was some contest between the department of the administration there, which unfortunately wasn't always out in the open where we could show the administration what we felt was a value in the department etceteras. And this made life a bit difficult in the department at the time and it has taken some time to work these things out 'til the department and the administration understand each other in much better terms as they do now I believe.

Q: Why has not the Music Department kept pace with other departments on the campus in acquiring new facilities and equipment?

A: It's a difficult question. Obviously money's a problem with the facilities for any department. Now why the money problem should hit the Music Department in particular, I think it comes back to a couple of things. Music Department has always been relatively small in student enrollment. It has also been an expensive department as it is - and as a music department is in any college or university due to necessary small classes, individualized applied music instruction, and that kind of thing. I think that small size made it difficult for us to achieve priority in funding for facilities equipment. Another aspect of it is that the facilities that we had did limit our growth and therefore the basis for acquisition of equipment. It - there is something of a spiral in this situation and again that's the situation which has been gradually changing until I feel that we are now at a much stronger position of priority in the thinking of the administration for both facilities and other aspects of budget. The music building proposed for the future has gotten at a much better place in the budget projections of the university. The first time that it was projected was in the Bugg Administration, and at that time, for the first time, it was the last item on the list, which is means usually automatic cut-off. Then unfortunately, came the state budget crunch, which in the next year, or ?? after that, cut out all of our capital expenditures, not just music but the whole university, except if I remember correctly for the maintenance building. So that we were facing additional problems that are not those of the attitude of the administration or of our position of the priorities, but those of the states extra budgetary problems right now.

Q: Could you explain the function of the new University Senate created at the behest of President James L. Bugg, Jr.?

A: I can't say more than simply what the constitution of the Senate says, and that is that the Senate is the agency for students, faculty and administrators to come together to make recommendations to the administration on any matters of policy in the university. That is the purpose and therefore the function of the senate.

Q: What offices have you filled in the University Senate?

A: I have been Vice-Chairman, the elected representative to the Executive Council, and Chairman of the Senate, Chairman for three years and on the Executive Council for all the time that I've been in the Senate. And then of course committee Chairmanship as well of the Grievance Committee. Indirectly related to the Senate, also I was for a year the faculty elected - one of the two faculty elected - representatives to the Board of Visitors.

Q: What role did the University Senate perform in revising the basic curricular requirements at ODU in 1974?

A: The Senate was basically instrumental. It in '74 it initiated a revision of the previously revised distribution requirements. And the previous ones had been initiated in part by the administration. The revision of them I think was initiated basically by the Senate. And a thorough review of them was conducted by the Curriculum Committee - Curriculum and Instruction Committee and then passed through the full Senate.

Q: What are the responsibilities of the Executive Council of the University Senate?

A: The responsibilities of the Executive Council are first and primarily to act as a steering organization for the Senate. It's the organization which is responsible for making up the agenda for Senate meetings and for assigning work that is brought to the Senate to committees. These functions are more than mechanical because it frequently takes a good deal of discussion and debate in Executive Council meetings in order to decide the proper assignment for a resolution to a committee or - as to whether it should be assigned to committee or not. And the making up the Senate agenda again is an - more than mechanical function in that we test the material that comes from the committees as to its readiness for Senate action. We determine the order of the agenda which is not always fixed and therefore are involved in a consideration of the issues to the extent necessary to see the proper treatment of them. Beyond that the Executive Council has a responsibility for maintaining the kind of contact between the Senate and the administration that will make the Senate's work as effective as possible. This includes the Executive Council and the Chairman's observation of the work of committees - to see how the work is conducted, how expeditiously and how thoroughly. It includes presenting the Senate recommendations to the administration and being available for explanation when necessary and possible of the background of the recommendations and especially for just keeping the kind of communication open between the administration and the Senate which will hope to keep the administrations receptivity to the Senate recommendations at a high level.

Q: How active, responsive and responsible have the Student Senators been over the years?

A: In general, I would say as high as could be expected. That takes into account the ??? nature of students and the fact that they have not had as much opportunity as faculty members or administrators to acquire the sense of responsibility necessary for committee work and this kind of thing. It also takes into account the difference in this campus from many other campuses. The fact that this campus is basically not a residence campus -- the dorms serve a small proportion of our enrollment. And this effects student attitudes towards everything that goes on in campus including extra-curricular activities and things such as the Senate. Students who live at home frequently have an objective to get off campus as quickly as possible. Or taken from another standpoint, many of our students because they come to this institution come here because they must work -- save money by living at home and therefore have jobs in the afternoon -- let's say at Senate meeting times, at Committee meeting times - and there are real problems for the students in exercising their responsibilities. So that I would say that the answer is as good as could be expected given the situation of the institution.

Q: Of what significance is the University Senate on this campus today in 1975, and does the administration pay sufficient heed to the Senate?

A: I think the Senate occupies a much more important place on the campus than it did. I think its credibility and its influence has been growing. I'm not satisfied with the extent of it. Nor am I satisfied with the extent of the influence on the administration. You asked does the administration pay sufficient heed to the Senate, and the answer from the administration would be to quote the number of recommendations from the Senate that have been approved by the administration. And it is true, that many of them have been in numbers. But one can't test the significance of the individual recommendations by the numbers and certain of the recommendations such as that concerning the grandfather clause or the promotion and tenure guidelines have been either rejected or so substantially altered as to not represent the basic recommendations of the Senate. So that I feel and I suppose I would feel for a long time dissatisfied with the extent of the influence of the Senate and I would hope for continued growth in that influence.

Q: Could you compare and or contrast the music students of today at ODU with those whom you first taught at the Norfolk Division?

A: Yes. Then as now there always has been a certain proportion of well-talented students. Plus a good cross-section of those of modest talents. The size of the department makes some difference in the influence on students. A larger department with more competition, more visible standards because of other students in the department stimulates better achievement on the part of the students. Another comparison that can be made is that that would be made in the university as a whole. And that is that attitudes of students have greatly changed by now and I've already mentioned this in connection with their attitudes an receptivity towards academic discipline - mental discipline. And this even extends into the severe disciplines that are necessary in music, the hours of practice that a student has to spend, the kind of attitudes it takes towards that practice, the attitudes that he has towards supporting courses, such as the history courses in the department, the theory courses, etceteras. I believe that this is perhaps is beginning a turn back towards increased student seriousness and responsibility of attitude, but I think it still represents a problem.

Q: What is your understanding of the mission of the Music Department within the overall mission of the Urban University - Old Dominion University?

A: Basically our mission is the preparation of teachers and of professionals in music and I say professionals - I'm referring particularly to those who want to go to graduate school either in the intellectual aspects of music such as music history and musicology and those performers who want to go to advanced training. We've had students for instance go to places like Julliard - you can almost pick the graduate school and our students have gone there at one time or another. in addition to that mission, there's a much stronger emphasis under the programmatic themes of this university which were proposed by the administration some years ago of service to the community. And that is an emphasis in music as well. We still attempt to serve the community through conscience of our organizations taking them out to the community where for possible - drawing the community campus wherever possible. I'd like to see that mission fulfilled by more concerts by visiting artists, but that requires a budget that we haven't been able to establish yet.

Q: How would you characterize the state of the Department of Music on this campus in the s er of 1975 and its future prospects?

A: I would say that this is a --- number one, very cooperative department both within itself and within the university. It is a department with many highly qualified professionals in it. The caliber of our instruction in applied music is good and in some cases m excellent. The caliber of our work in the academic courses within the department is excellent - again it provides the students with an opportunity to go to graduate school with good preparation - or for that matter - to go out into the profession let's say in the public schools with strong musical background. To say that I'm satisfied however with that state would be foolish. I wish just as much as anyone in the department or in the administration would to see the department continually grow in strength, both in terms of its faculty and in terms of the students that we attract. We are attracting more talented than we did - I hope that that will continue. I hope fervently for facilities as fast as we can get them, because the strongest department these days is inhibited in the attraction of students. When the facilities are as limited in terms of space and in terms of the quality of the facilities as ours - this is a really extremely important thing to us. Those are part of the future prospects that you ask about. I think a good of our future prospects depend on our ability to find additional and better space.

Q: What, in conclusion, have been your greatest satisfactions and disappointments since joining the faculty in 1951?

A: From a standpoint of my profession, my satisfaction is the continued and steady growth of the department. The department has never fallen backwards, and my own satisfaction is to have been a central part of that for as long as I have. Dr. Vogan and I are the original members of the present faculty. Other satisfactions in the music field have come from being elected to a State Chairmanship in I was for three years Chairman of the College section of the Virginia Music Educators Association. And my membership in the Senate is also a source of great satisfaction to me. One of the largest ones that I have. The Chairmanship of the Senate to feel that I have been one of many people who were instrumental in increasing the effectiveness of the operation of the Senate and its influence as well. I was - have felt satisfactions in the contacts that I have had with the community here. I feel that we need to increase those contacts, not only because of the Urban in quotes mission of the university, but simply because it's a natural thing for this university to do. I think disappointments - my central disappointment is the failure to acquire the facilities that we need for the Music Department. I have looked forward to that from my earliest days in the shacks here, and I'm still looking forward - never having been at any time in my twenty-some years of service here in facilities that I would consider serve - to serve the department adequately. I think another disappointment is the feeling that I have that I mentioned that the Senate has not achieved yet the influence that I hope to see it achieve. But that's not a major disappointment because that's a situation of continued growth.

Q: Thank you very much Professor Breneiser.

Tape ends.