Although you cannot see its force, the water that flows beneath the frozen ice of the winter river's surface is an active and vital power. It is much like the machine that created the RME - an unseen current. Just because it is not visible does not mean that it is not a powerful, imposing, and long-term force.
After accepting an invitation and attending many advisory-committee meetings (even before it had a name) with the promise of being involved with something dynamic, educational, and worthwhile, it is very hard to express my disappointment over the faded promise of the River Music Experience (RME). What bad taste to taunt us with unique and prideful possibilities and then reward our euphoria with what appears to be glitzy mediocrity.
Sean Leary of the Argus and Dispatch declared it one of his best of 2004: "Most welcome debut on the local scene: River Music Experience." These snippets only served to mock my disappointment with RME's outcome. As a closet historian and cultural-arts advocate, I looked forward to the educational experience, the inspiration experience, the teaching experience, and the interactive hands-on experience, as well as the fodder-for-my-dreams experience. Who knew the prospect of unlimited possibilities would last only four months. Every time I think the disappointment is going away, more stories appear to rub my nose again in its vanishing aroma. I gladly donated my time and shared my resources to contribute to a museum, but I don't think I would have donated one minute to create an urban restaurant entertainment center.
"The River Music Experience opened in downtown Davenport in June, and the founding director sounded her final notes four months later. ...Attendance figures have not been what officials were hoping."
-- "The RME's High and Low Notes," Quad-City Times
RME opened June 14 with this mission: "to preserve the music of the Mississippi River through permanent and changing exhibits, live music programs, and hands-on education." The River Cities' Reader praised: "The River Music Experience in downtown Davenport is poised to be a jewel of the Quad Cities cultural scene, and possibly a world-class facility." Optimism over "the possibilities" was augmented by Director Connie Gibbons' oft-repeated mantra: "This is just the beginning. We have a lifetime worth of work to finish the story."
After Gibbons' departure in October, the board altered the mission clearly away from preservation and education and toward entertainment. The new mission: "to present a diverse one-of a-kind urban entertainment experience that celebrates roots music along the Mississippi and enriches the lives of Quad City residents and visitors."
We have seen, heard, or read, and often with great chagrin, editorials and stories about RME that reported to us like we were toddlers in need of coddling. This approach fails to tell us how much money was spent, and that it bought us a pricey theme restaurant instead of the community jewel that favorably compares to Cleveland's Rock & Roll Hall of Fame & Museum or Seattle's Experience Music Project that we were encouraged to expect.
How did we get here? Who decided we didn't need a museum? What kind opportunity is a four-month trial? What museum can be self-supporting in four months? What starting museum expects the turnstiles to totally support its existence? Convenience stores have a larger management staff than RME. Who's minding the store? Ellis Kell is good, but is he struggling alone? How did a restaurant get control of several aspects of a popular, well-received museum? Is this what is known as good stewardship?
Some would argue that nothing has changed or been destroyed, and that the new directors have punched up programming, such as the Saturday programs for kids. They have retained everything the museum was and added to it.
Many would disagree! Our trust in the powers that be may have been destroyed. I am afraid they are satisfied with what has been created and see no need to grow intellectually or add to the documentation of our local musical heritage. I am afraid that nebulous commercial interests will smother educational, artistic, and creative approaches that could greatly benefit our community.
It is a given that the history of roots music has a proletarian flavor, so perhaps to desire a museum downtown not founded on aristocratic blessings is indeed an overreaching, highbrow notion. Even so, it has to be more than just a cool place for the privileged to take a client for a beer and some blues at 5 o'clock. Is this a Quad Cities version of re-gentrification?
By comparison, I am eagerly looking forward to the Figge Art Museum opening as an example of what can be accomplished with clear goals, adequate staff, and reasonable operational expectations. The RME, on the other hand, was destined to fail as a museum because no director - given an inadequate staff and inadequate resources - could do it all. It was a job too large for anyone.
Senator Maggie Tinsman thinks something should be done to enshrine Bix in a more significant way at the RME. While I don't agree, it would be preferred to the arrested development that comes when our mission changes from a museum and changing-exhibits concept - which includes research and growing exhibits - to one of innovative urban food opportunities. The tenant restaurant, Centro, has taken over management of Mojo's and books the changing exhibits gallery for meetings, banquets, etc. The fact remains that there has not been a museum-quality exhibit in the changing-exhibits gallery since the one that opened the center, the Waterman collection.
Many letters to the editor were in support of the RME as conceived in its original mission statement and appealed for reason. It is not a matter of simply disagreeing with the chosen re-direction for RME, but one of questioning its common sense, and trying to shake the feeling of being duped.
The effect of changing the mission after only four months invites the criticism that maybe someone is only pretending to have a full sense of what is working or not working. Did the powers that be ever intend to keep the dynamics and stature of a museum, or did they just panic?
It makes no sense to think the public prefers the repeated "on the right track" declarations of the restructured board to the maintenance and growth of a cutting-edge cultural facility.
According to the Quad-City Times, "River Music Experience and the RME board wanted an urban entertainment center." What exactly does that mean? Are we to believe that our desire for a substantive cultural arts facility was a bad thing?
It makes no sense to compare the loss of a museum-quality facility to a unique banquet room. If we want to celebrate our kid's birthday, we can rent Chuck E. Cheese.
It makes no sense for us listen to the board's report to the City Council that the facility is stable and not think someone pulled a fast one. But it must be okay, because one not-for-profit won permission from aldermen to transfer assets to another not-for-profit board that is now running the museum. (Hmmm, somebody else still calls it a museum.)
Maybe the social/cultural engineers really think the public doesn't care or won't mind this lite version of RME. But I don't think the depth of disappointment with what has happened registers on the board's radar. I can't help but be disappointed that RME's hopes for success were tied to a strategy that was destined to fail: establishing unrealistic expectations and a budget based on a study with ambitious commercial projections.
Most of us have no problem with a restaurant as an expert on food, but many do have a problem with a restaurant pressed into service as caretaker of our cultural legacies. It doesn't work. For safety, security, and environmental reasons, the Waterman collection would almost never have agreed to its collection being handled by a restaurant. So much for the Changing Exhibits Gallery - no more changing exhibits.
This could suggest that the RME has passed its peak and will not be growing or improving regarding its exhibits or the fullness of information available. Who is left that is committed to seek out and integrate other local music heroes and their histories, which represent additional and rich aspects of the area's music history, into the RME?
Obviously we will have to live with what remains; that doesn't mean we can't be disappointed or maintain dreams. We can continue to talk about and want the facility to be more than mediocre. We can continue to want it to live up to its promised potential. We can continue to remind whoever will listen that we were promised a facility that not only served as a repository for our music history, but encouraged and educated future musicians with knowledge of how the industry works, how to write music and lyrics, how to make a demo, how and why to make a recording, how to be a sound engineer. It was suggested that the center would facilitate performances and provide PBS-like content in an Austin City Limits fashion.
Why can't we tap into the music departments of our wide area of colleges for interns and student teachers to provide scheduled and ongoing instruction? The many educational and inspiration benefits the center could provide are not exclusively measured in dollars. Education! Some of the greatest contributions RME could provide are not monetary. That is the nature of museums!
You might ask: If all of this is a done deal, why bother saying anything?
Simple. Some of us are greatly disappointed that our high expectations, for a facility the entire community could be proud of, seem to have disappeared. Plus, we all know the cost of saying nothing.
Nate Lawrence, a public relations consultant and East Moline native, is an advocate for music and culture in the Quad Cities and co-founder of the performance organization Polyrhythms.
After accepting an invitation and attending many advisory-committee meetings (even before it had a name) with the promise of being involved with something dynamic, educational, and worthwhile, it is very hard to express my disappointment over the faded promise of the River Music Experience (RME). What bad taste to taunt us with unique and prideful possibilities and then reward our euphoria with what appears to be glitzy mediocrity.
Sean Leary of the Argus and Dispatch declared it one of his best of 2004: "Most welcome debut on the local scene: River Music Experience." These snippets only served to mock my disappointment with RME's outcome. As a closet historian and cultural-arts advocate, I looked forward to the educational experience, the inspiration experience, the teaching experience, and the interactive hands-on experience, as well as the fodder-for-my-dreams experience. Who knew the prospect of unlimited possibilities would last only four months. Every time I think the disappointment is going away, more stories appear to rub my nose again in its vanishing aroma. I gladly donated my time and shared my resources to contribute to a museum, but I don't think I would have donated one minute to create an urban restaurant entertainment center.
"The River Music Experience opened in downtown Davenport in June, and the founding director sounded her final notes four months later. ...Attendance figures have not been what officials were hoping."
-- "The RME's High and Low Notes," Quad-City Times
RME opened June 14 with this mission: "to preserve the music of the Mississippi River through permanent and changing exhibits, live music programs, and hands-on education." The River Cities' Reader praised: "The River Music Experience in downtown Davenport is poised to be a jewel of the Quad Cities cultural scene, and possibly a world-class facility." Optimism over "the possibilities" was augmented by Director Connie Gibbons' oft-repeated mantra: "This is just the beginning. We have a lifetime worth of work to finish the story."
After Gibbons' departure in October, the board altered the mission clearly away from preservation and education and toward entertainment. The new mission: "to present a diverse one-of a-kind urban entertainment experience that celebrates roots music along the Mississippi and enriches the lives of Quad City residents and visitors."
We have seen, heard, or read, and often with great chagrin, editorials and stories about RME that reported to us like we were toddlers in need of coddling. This approach fails to tell us how much money was spent, and that it bought us a pricey theme restaurant instead of the community jewel that favorably compares to Cleveland's Rock & Roll Hall of Fame & Museum or Seattle's Experience Music Project that we were encouraged to expect.
How did we get here? Who decided we didn't need a museum? What kind opportunity is a four-month trial? What museum can be self-supporting in four months? What starting museum expects the turnstiles to totally support its existence? Convenience stores have a larger management staff than RME. Who's minding the store? Ellis Kell is good, but is he struggling alone? How did a restaurant get control of several aspects of a popular, well-received museum? Is this what is known as good stewardship?
Some would argue that nothing has changed or been destroyed, and that the new directors have punched up programming, such as the Saturday programs for kids. They have retained everything the museum was and added to it.
Many would disagree! Our trust in the powers that be may have been destroyed. I am afraid they are satisfied with what has been created and see no need to grow intellectually or add to the documentation of our local musical heritage. I am afraid that nebulous commercial interests will smother educational, artistic, and creative approaches that could greatly benefit our community.
It is a given that the history of roots music has a proletarian flavor, so perhaps to desire a museum downtown not founded on aristocratic blessings is indeed an overreaching, highbrow notion. Even so, it has to be more than just a cool place for the privileged to take a client for a beer and some blues at 5 o'clock. Is this a Quad Cities version of re-gentrification?
By comparison, I am eagerly looking forward to the Figge Art Museum opening as an example of what can be accomplished with clear goals, adequate staff, and reasonable operational expectations. The RME, on the other hand, was destined to fail as a museum because no director - given an inadequate staff and inadequate resources - could do it all. It was a job too large for anyone.
Senator Maggie Tinsman thinks something should be done to enshrine Bix in a more significant way at the RME. While I don't agree, it would be preferred to the arrested development that comes when our mission changes from a museum and changing-exhibits concept - which includes research and growing exhibits - to one of innovative urban food opportunities. The tenant restaurant, Centro, has taken over management of Mojo's and books the changing exhibits gallery for meetings, banquets, etc. The fact remains that there has not been a museum-quality exhibit in the changing-exhibits gallery since the one that opened the center, the Waterman collection.
Many letters to the editor were in support of the RME as conceived in its original mission statement and appealed for reason. It is not a matter of simply disagreeing with the chosen re-direction for RME, but one of questioning its common sense, and trying to shake the feeling of being duped.
The effect of changing the mission after only four months invites the criticism that maybe someone is only pretending to have a full sense of what is working or not working. Did the powers that be ever intend to keep the dynamics and stature of a museum, or did they just panic?
It makes no sense to think the public prefers the repeated "on the right track" declarations of the restructured board to the maintenance and growth of a cutting-edge cultural facility.
According to the Quad-City Times, "River Music Experience and the RME board wanted an urban entertainment center." What exactly does that mean? Are we to believe that our desire for a substantive cultural arts facility was a bad thing?
It makes no sense to compare the loss of a museum-quality facility to a unique banquet room. If we want to celebrate our kid's birthday, we can rent Chuck E. Cheese.
It makes no sense for us listen to the board's report to the City Council that the facility is stable and not think someone pulled a fast one. But it must be okay, because one not-for-profit won permission from aldermen to transfer assets to another not-for-profit board that is now running the museum. (Hmmm, somebody else still calls it a museum.)
Maybe the social/cultural engineers really think the public doesn't care or won't mind this lite version of RME. But I don't think the depth of disappointment with what has happened registers on the board's radar. I can't help but be disappointed that RME's hopes for success were tied to a strategy that was destined to fail: establishing unrealistic expectations and a budget based on a study with ambitious commercial projections.
Most of us have no problem with a restaurant as an expert on food, but many do have a problem with a restaurant pressed into service as caretaker of our cultural legacies. It doesn't work. For safety, security, and environmental reasons, the Waterman collection would almost never have agreed to its collection being handled by a restaurant. So much for the Changing Exhibits Gallery - no more changing exhibits.
This could suggest that the RME has passed its peak and will not be growing or improving regarding its exhibits or the fullness of information available. Who is left that is committed to seek out and integrate other local music heroes and their histories, which represent additional and rich aspects of the area's music history, into the RME?
Obviously we will have to live with what remains; that doesn't mean we can't be disappointed or maintain dreams. We can continue to talk about and want the facility to be more than mediocre. We can continue to want it to live up to its promised potential. We can continue to remind whoever will listen that we were promised a facility that not only served as a repository for our music history, but encouraged and educated future musicians with knowledge of how the industry works, how to write music and lyrics, how to make a demo, how and why to make a recording, how to be a sound engineer. It was suggested that the center would facilitate performances and provide PBS-like content in an Austin City Limits fashion.
Why can't we tap into the music departments of our wide area of colleges for interns and student teachers to provide scheduled and ongoing instruction? The many educational and inspiration benefits the center could provide are not exclusively measured in dollars. Education! Some of the greatest contributions RME could provide are not monetary. That is the nature of museums!
You might ask: If all of this is a done deal, why bother saying anything?
Simple. Some of us are greatly disappointed that our high expectations, for a facility the entire community could be proud of, seem to have disappeared. Plus, we all know the cost of saying nothing.
Nate Lawrence, a public relations consultant and East Moline native, is an advocate for music and culture in the Quad Cities and co-founder of the performance organization Polyrhythms.
