Put Another Nickel In

In all likelihood you have no idea what the title of this essay refers to. And that's the point.

Just to get that out of the way, it's the first line of a 1950 song sung by Teresa Brewer. You're probably not familiar with her either. The nickel goes into a nickelodeon – a jukebox – though that, too, is probably only a dim memory if you've heard of it at all. And with all the available devices for creating your own audio environment there's no reason why you should have – though you may have seen one in a museum, if you go to one. (Do people go to museums nowadays?)

Okay. Now down to business. I like classical music. The “three B's” are a good starting point, but I like other music as well, including some from before Bach and after Brahms. But I have to admit that I can't stand twelve-tone or non-melodic “modern” music. Much of it I find to be just plain noise. I'm quick to stipulate that the music I like was once “modern,” and viewed by many with the same horror and disgust that I now heap on many of the current composers and those of the last century. That, however, doesn't change anything. I like what I like. (I suggest that you look up BFO: www.acronymfinder.com/Blinding-Flash-of-the-Obvious-(BFO).html)

As for “popular” music, what I like, the music of the early and middle twentieth century, isn't very popular anymore. Those of us who remember and like it have to go out of our way to find it. “The Great American Songbook” has, in our minds, been corrupted by rock and hip-hop. I don't want to paint with too broad a brush – the Beatles (and some other groups and individuals) will live forever, but they're exceptions. And though I can't understand hip-hop or rap or whatever it's called, I know one thing about it: it ain't music.

Actually, rap is what got me started on this essay. Someone on the radio was commenting on the fact that “Hamilton” was likely to be named the best musical of the year. In accordance with the philosophy of Ayn Rand I don't have to see it to know I don't like it. The whole idea of a rap musical depicting events in the life of one of our Founding Fathers is so outlandish as to make any thought of spending good money (and my valuable time) on it risible. Perhaps it's a good teaching tool for those who refuse to learn history any other way, but if they're children from deprived families they can't afford it, and if they're adults who can afford it but never learned about our history in school and are too lazy to learn now, they should be ashamed – no matter how much money they've accumulated. The fictionalized story, in a form of music that would be unrecognizable to the title character, may be popular, but I find it depressing to think that this is what the American Musical Theater has turned into.

I grew up on the “Broadway Musical” at a time when it represented an important source of popular music. The era from Kern to Loesser was a great period in American musical history although I know there were many losers that accompanied the winners, and I know that there have been occasional shows since that feature actual, singable, songs. But in recent years most of the Broadway musicals have been based on rock and rap, or have contained whiny ballads that have no melody and all sound the same. And all the singers whine the same. Well maybe not the same, but without any uniqueness. Their only characteristics are melisma and the imitation of gospel and rock. The only good show are the revivals of the ones that were classics.

What I understand intellectually, but reject emotionally, is that my children and my grandchildren will, for the most part, spurn my likes and dislikes. (Of course they like the Beatles – another B. They're timeless. What's not to like?) Every generation views its likes as definitive, and dismisses later creations as perversions of the real thing. I shudder to think that they identify with “music” that is, for me, only un-understandable noise. For them it's a model of what music should be, but they'll be repaid when they have to listen to the music of the next generation.

We love what was, not what is. We remember with affection what we heard when we were young. It doesn't matter if it was new then or simply represented what was drummed into us then. Nostalgia. (That's not to suggest that Bach is nostalgia – he wrote great music. On the other hand Berg and Bartok – two other B's whom I didn't hear as a child – wrote music that makes me cringe.) Anything subsequent to that doesn't live up to the “good old days.” (It's not just the music, of course. The days of the nickelodeon and the group were, somehow, more fun than today's isolation by earbuds.) While we can't monitor what our children hear outside, we can permeate the home environment with (what we consider) good music. That's one way to give the classics a chance – whatever genre they represent.

Today's music strikes me as cacophony aimed at making money and winning awards (which are now a dime a dozen). They don't write music like they used to.

Boy, am I crotchety.

Silly Season

                                                                  

It's silly season again.ⁱ The candidates for President are roaming around the country making promises to every audience they can find, and, especially, to any group that has a particular ax to grind. Each candidate, naturally, has a better solution than his opponent to every problem, and a more all-encompassing promise than the other that he will be responsive to the needs of the voters. The speechifying and general campaigning will go on almost non-stopⁱⁱ until election day. Then it will stop abruptlyⁱⁱⁱ while the parties analyze the results and start their planning for the next general election.

During the campaign those running for office will, in their speeches and even more in their advertisements, spend more time bewailing the failures of their opponents than suggesting solutions to the problems they identify. They will, however, let us know that they have a plan to cure all the ills they perceive. They may not reveal the details of that plan, but trust them, it will do the trick.

That, however, is all show. For them and for most of us. If you didn't know three months ago how you'd vote in November, you haven't been paying attention.^iv And if you didn't know whom the various papers would endorse long ago, the same is true. For example, over the last few days (or maybe it's been weeks) the lead editorial in the New York Times has focused on why the Republican candidates will destroy America, and the vast majority of its Op-Ed columns also denigrate them.^v They don't have all that much to say about the President, but you get more mileage from negative than positive statements.

On the other hand, the Wall Street Journal is writing a lot about the Republicans, their nominees, and the convention – and most of it is favorable. It's easy to guess which candidates each will favor when the election rolls around. I suspect that the endorsement editorials have already been written. Indeed, they were probably outlined years ago with spaces left for the insertion of whatever seems timely to support their predetermined positions.

And none of it will have much impact on those papers' readers. They've already made up their minds. The endorsements' main value is to convince the lethargic that there is an important decision to be made and they are critical to it. The current goal of the campaigning is to be seen as the winner. And the incumbent has the advantage since he has the better chance to do things that attract attention, whether or not his acts have any real impact.

But now's not the time to pay attention. You'll go out of your mind. First of all, the candidates and their supporters can't be trusted now. They're saying whatever it takes to attract votes. Truth and sincerity are not important, although their appearance is. (After the election the winner can “clarify” his intent and the loser can point to the backtracking. Or he can skulk into, and sulk in a corner. In either case the original statements and the charges and changes will be quickly forgotten.) Politicking now is just that, politicking, and the high-minded (and highly negative – the ads you see will, for the most part be defamatory) rhetoric is not to be believed. What is said about the issues is what the candidates believe to be important to voters and it's all spin. Priorities now are looking good on television and appearing to act decisively, so there'll be loud proclamations and accusations, as well as negative advertising and rapid reaction to the polls and to anything that seems to have the voters' interest.

Batten down the hatches. Until election day your telephone won't stop ringing with robocalls, and your mailbox will burst with political brochures and pamphlets. And, of course, expect lots of e-mail and its analogues. But remember that anything you read in those pamphlets and hear on the telephone calls and in the media now can't be believed. The reality is that when the time comes, the red states will be mostly red and the blue states mostly blue.^vi Campaigning will focus on the undecided who, unfortunately, can't remember history, not even the last election. They have almost no knowledge of what the candidates actually believe or what they have done. Nor do they really care. They are the apathetic, ignorant, and uninformed ones, or, more euphemistically, the “independent” and “undecided,” and may not even make up their minds until they enter the voting booth. They'll be the focus of the ads and speeches from now on. Toward the end it's all about appeal to those undecided voters who will choose based on appearance and other non-political factors, though the appearance of decisiveness and action will help the image. Those who haven't yet decided have no interest in reality and past performance, only in images.^vii

Don't expect anything substantive^viii to occur. Both parties will make proposals that they know are doomed but will give the appearance of decisiveness and concern for the voters. But both parties will block the efforts of the other so as to avoid giving an issue to their opponent, or in order to get one for themselves. Don't worry though. Most of what's promised is of no consequence to the one promising it, nor should it be to you. Most of the proposed programs are ill-considered for the long run,^ix but that won't be of any great significance because none of what's promised will happen no matter who wins. Even those proposing the programs don't expect them to be enacted. It's all show for the voters.

So don't worry. It's silly season now.^x Nothing will change. And all we can expect is a continuation of what we've had, based on our knowledge of the candidates' and the parties' past performance.

Oh. We can also expect traffic jams caused by motorcades.^xi

Next episode: "Parsing Fancy" – All I know is what I read.

 

i      When is it not? In this particular instance, in the last week of August, things are just as idiotic as they'll be when this is published.

ii     There will be an occasional pause in the campaigning when some inevitable tragedy occurs. Everyone will remind us that some healing must take place before it can resume. To continue would show disrespect for those who have suffered. But those displays of “sensitivity” are themselves a form of campaigning and of humanizing the candidates. And it's fascinating how soon they determine that the time of sadness is over and they can get back to to educating the voters to the critical issues that will change the country – issues that only they can face successfully.

iii    But not for very long. Once the analysis has taken place, present and future candidates will begin telling voters about likely future problems – the ones that polls tell them have swayed the voters themselves – and their solutions.

iv     The reality is that most of us are single issue voters, though we may want to convince others – and ourselves – that we are basing our vote on everything that is being discussed. But having decided where a candidate stands on the issue that is most important to us, we “spin” his position on everything else to support our decision.

v      Today (August 29^th), on the morning following the vote for the Republican nominee for president, the Times's lead editorial condemned what it considered Republican “propaganda” at the convention.

vi      Pink, mauve, and puce voters will also be important.

vii     They may try to convince themselves, and anyone who'll listen, that they're weighing all the information about past performance and plans for the future, but the truth is that they haven't been paying any attention until now and will wind up voting on a whim, or for an image.

viii    Other than vigorous fundraising. It's amazing how much money is used in carrying on a campaign. It reflects how much the candidates consider the offices worth – to themselves and to those who support them. Apart from a job, a leg-up on the next election, and some prestige, the candidate, for whatever office, receives some valuable “perks,” some of them for life. And the benefits for contributors, including individuals, corporations, lobbies, and unions, are huge in terms of the ability to dictate political agendas and to get “set asides,” “earmarks,” tax benefits, and the like. It's a good investment if you're on the winning side.

ix     The unintended consequences would be more harmful than the intended would be helpful.

x       It's also two years since I began writing these essays.

xi     To rub salt into the wound, taxpayers will both suffer from these inconveniences and pay for them.