Showing posts with label Society. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Society. Show all posts

Sunday, September 08, 2013

The Erosion of Associative Learning (and Its Detrimental Effects)

Many moons ago, back before anyone had the ability to do anything, because cell phones, smartphones, the internet, email, text messaging, Facebook, personal computers and cable TV had yet to be invented, or were still in their infancy, I was a high school freshman.

I don't remember much about freshman year except for my friend Jordan being thrown out of Ms. Hall's Algebra class, and he'll probably say I have the story wrong. So this is representative, not explicitly real, but bear with me.

Let's say in my World History class I was assigned to do a report on Belgium.

Since the high school library was reserved for playing origami football, which consisted of folding sheets of paper into triangles that could be flicked for field goal attempts, this would involve riding my bike through the streets of Skokie to the library on a Saturday morning.

Along the way, I would likely stop to get something to eat and also visit Record City, to see what new albums were on the racks.

Once at the library, on route to the collection of encyclopedias at the back of the second floor, I would pass numerous books on display and on shelves, and probably be prompted to check something out, which has dual connotations in a library.

While World Book was always my encyclopedia of choice, there was also Encyclopedia Britannica, Funk & Wagnalls and several other multi-volume sets.

Even if I took merely the “B” volume of World Book back to a table, before or after I honed in on Belgium, it was certainly within reason that I might notice entries on “The Beatles” or “bees” or “baseball” or “Barcelona” or “Beethoven” or “Harry Belafonte” or “ballet” or the “Battle of Gettysburg” or “bass guitar” or—well, you get the idea.

Nowadays—and I should give the caveat that without kids of my own, my speculation certainly lacks much acute awareness of today's teenage tendencies, but is based a bit on observations of a niece and two nephews—kids doing a report on Belgium would presumably just go to Wikipedia or Google or other online resources (I was surprised to learn that World Book has an online encyclopedia for which schools can secure access) and search for “Belgium.”

And though information on millions of other subjects is instantly accessible, unless teens—or even adults—are prompted for a reason to explore something they weren't looking for, they probably won't.

Hence, while more information is more instantly available to more people than ever before in history, my sense is that this is actually resulting in people generally knowing less, not more.



Technology, in Itself, Isn't a Bad Thing, but...

Let me say, before I completely convince you that I'm a curmudgeonly technophobe, that I love modern technology, at least on a personal level.

I love the expediency that text messaging can provide. I like being able to watch entire television series with nothing more than a few clicks. I like always having “my music” with me. I like sharing my blog posts on Facebook and occasionally offering some witticism that makes me feel glib. I like using the Kindle app to read books on the train. I like buying replacement ink cartridges for my printer in 1-click. I like referencing IMDB during movies (at home).  And not a day goes by when I'm not looking something up on Wikipedia.

I also understand that most people are going to embrace the technology that is available—and the simplicity it often brings—and that young people who have grown up with such omnipresent technology aren't going to actively seek out the “analog” predecessors to the digital age.

There is not much reason I can think of to tell a 16-year-old to use a phone book, physical road map or—except for those really interested in learning the nuances of photography—a film camera. Many things that once were ubiquitous are now largely obsolete, and no tears need to be shed in the name of progress, even for us sentimentalists.
But my guess is that most 16-year-olds, unless imparted with certain passions by their parents, cannot name the four Beatles, or likely a Beatles album.
They probably don't recognize the names Sandy Koufax, Joe Louis, Milton Berle, Leonard Bernstein, Humphrey Bogart, Stan Laurel, Ian Fleming, Jonas Salk, Shirley Temple, Scott Joplin, Orson Welles or Louis Armstrong.
“So what?” you might say, “those were all people of a different age.”

Yes, but that's my point.

The heyday, if not full lifespan, of everyone I named was largely before “my time.” Yet, I'm pretty certain I knew who all of those people were before I went off to college at 17. And while I certainly came to know about many more people, topics, interests & pursuits in, and since, college, I don't know how many of those—or similar—once household names would even be recognized by the average 30-year-old today.

The Lack of Personal Passions Can Have
Not-So-Superfluous Repercussions


Before I ramble on, let me throw out a few caveats. I have always had a curiosity about entertainment, culture and creative arts, and I don't mean to imply that in order to have a fulfilling life, people—of any age—must share my passions. Though I do believe having a passion for something—astronomy, birds, fashion, architecture, tennis, the Civil War, Scrabble, etc., etc.—can not only be quite gratifying, but even emotionally nourishing.

And though I believe—without a shred of scientific research—that modern technologies have likely detrimentally impacted what I have termed “associative learning,” i.e. discovering something of interest you weren't intentionally seeking, even with this erosion seeming particularly acute among younger generations never weaned on roaming through record stores (see this somewhat related piece) or flipping through physical dictionaries, I'm not saying that the internet is solely responsible.

Also, while I don't think they provide quite the same type of peripheral information-ingesting and interest-prompting that physical encyclopedias, book/record stores, newspapers, magazines, bulletin boards, etc. once did, I should note that websites like Amazon, Pandora, Netflix, Spotify and, less actively, Wikipedia do try to turn users onto things not overtly sought.

And, theoretically, Facebook, Twitter and other web vehicles have exponentially mushroomed the concept of "word of mouth." Though I can't recall the last time I've seen anyone recommend a good book.

Hopefully, in this day of ubiquitous text messaging, status reporting and headphone wearing, people--including parents and kids--still occasionally communicate verbally...and even share interests and ideas.

For interpersonal interaction can be even more influential than encyclopedias, magazines, etc. in introducing one to possible new interests and passions.

Parents, aunts, uncles, teachers, other adults and even friends of the same age can hugely influence a child's sphere of interests, and even their interest in having interests. It's no accident that the early-twentysomething daughter of a friend of mine older than me loves Cream and Hendrix and old blues players.

My father certainly influenced my interest in baseball, Broadway musicals and more, and introduced me to Bridge on the River Kwai before I hit high school. And an aunt who always seemed to be traveling the world is undoubtedly part of why I so love to do so. Her apartment was always filled with books and travel mementos, and I directly trace my desire to visit Australia—which I did in 2001—to having seen a photo of the Sydney Opera House in one of her Time-Life books over 20 years earlier.

But, without being a parent nor having much conversation about this with those who are, my perception is that even interpersonal enlightenment seems not to burn as bright as it once did.

The reasons for this could likely fill a whole other essay, and I won't dig deep into them here. Certainly the advent of electronic communication, personal entertainment devices and myriad distractions have likely cut down on verbal interaction--and overt bonding moments--between parents and teenage children.

It's hard to imagine a dad influencing, perhaps even passively, his kids to watch, say, The Honeymooners, as it would have been 30 years ago, when reruns would've been on 1 of 10 available VHF or UHF channels, not a lot harder to find among hundreds of cable channels and infinite other viewing options.

I also think there's something to entertainment choices being so abundant, and thereby fractionalized, that fewer things become part of the mass zeitgeist, or at least noticed by a hefty portion of the population. Parents who grew up with Elvis, the Beatles, Stones and/or Dylan would be conceivably more likely to introduce their kids to their--and in some ways, everyone's music--than, say, 40-year-old parents of teenagers today. Because with the parents being teens between '86-'92, perhaps they don't feel the need to expose their children to Ratt or Extreme or The Outfield or Fine Young Cannibals or Bananarama or Milli Vanilli or whoever they were listening to. And all of those artists were in heavy rotation on MTV, and thus fairly mainstream. With music options in the internet age even far more individualized, there's likely to be even fewer common touchstones passed down from generation to generation.

How Cultural Literacy Can Provide a Psychological Foundation

Shocking, I know, but I never spent much time going to high school parties, or hanging out on Chicago's Lincoln Avenue (or other bar-besieged “hot spots”) or even dating a whole lot. Thus, I had plenty of time and some kind of "chicken or egg" inclination to read books, watch old movies, listen to—and constantly explore--music and otherwise indulge my creative curiosities.

Hypothesizing that some of the popular and/or stoner kids, frat boys and bar sceners may now be blissful, well-adjusted adults, I'm not saying that the only route to “happiness” involves exploring the various components of the “Paul is Dead” hoax from years ago. Especially as it's rather difficult to spin an MP3 backwards.

But I don't believe it's coincidence that despite not having, in the past and/or present tense, many of the
traditional trappings of happiness, success, fulfillment, etc.--popularity, romance, great jobs, wealth, a wonderful physique, big house, fancy car, spouse, children or even a pet—I have generally been pretty happy and, without meaning to suggest there is anything wrong with doing so, have never used psychiatric or recreational drugs, nor indulged much in alcohol.

Understanding that behavioral health issues have myriad underlying factors, I don't mean to over-imply that the seeming dearth of associative learning--and the resulting lack of life-sustaining pursuits and passions--is a significant factor in tragic number of suicides, substance addictions, cases of depression or even just insecurities and self-esteem issues among teens, young adults and, well, everyone.

But it's quite likely I wouldn't be here if I didn't have Bruce Springsteen or a good book or a classic movie to turn to when things weren't going so great, or even when I would've otherwise just been bored.

i.e., There's nothing wrong with Facebook in itself, but if it's all you have, life can be a bit harder to face, particularly through the tough times.

Encourage Looking Beyond the Instant to Find Other Interests

I certainly can't turn back the clock, and I'm not suggesting all households start subscribing to physical newspapers again (though it couldn't hurt) or that physical bookstores be supported by the government if no longer fiscally viable.

But though I admittedly have more consternation than answers, I do think there are ways to encourage a re-acclimation to associative learning.

With apologies to parents and teachers and librarians and others who are already actively trying to expand the “field of focus” among young people, I believe moms, dads and educators need to expressly stimulate additional interests, as the days of seeing other encyclopedia entries or perusing record stores is long gone.

Part of this whole diatribe was prompted by hearing that one of my nephews had to do a report on a famous person. I forget who his subject was, but I thought this was pretty cool, even if his point of reference was WorldBook.com. But when I asked if he would be reading his report to the class, he said no, that wasn't part of the assignment.

So instead of learning about 30 great, famous and/or interesting people, he learned about just one. The solution to this seems pretty obvious, though I'm not naïve enough to think that if kids hear a classmate's report on Charlie Parker, they're instantly going to become bebop afficianados.

But if you know a teen who loves 'The Hunger Games,' recommend that they look up Wilma Rudolph or Jesse Owens on Wikipedia.

If they like Jay-Z or whatever rap star I should be naming, suggest they seek out Grandmaster Flash, or even Gil Scott-Heron, on Spotify.

If they go to high school football games, bring up clips of Walter Payton, Jim Brown and Joe Namath on YouTube.

If they've seen Wicked on stage or liked the Les Miserables movie or watch Glee, show them Singin' in the Rain, My Fair Lady and West Side Story, or even take them to other live shows. 

If they love seeing the latest superhero blockbusters, find a Bruce Lee movie on Netflix or Amazon.

And if they spend excessive time staring into space--when not staring at their phones--download a book by Carl Sagan or Stephen Hawkins to their smartphone. 

You see, the tools to support associative learning are more readily available—and easily accessible--than ever.

What needs a good bit of updating for the digital age, however, is the power of suggestion.

---
If You Want to Know...Learn

In the spirit of stimulating associative learning, I thought I'd conclude this by throwing out 30 names that I'm glad I've come to know.

I'm not saying these are all people that everyone needs to know--and certainly not teenagers, as my awareness of many came much later--nor necessarily the foremost practitioners in their respective fields.

But depending on your age and interests, there may be several names below with which you're unfamiliar; as they have all enriched my existence to some degree, perhaps you'd like to learn more about some.

Each name is linked to their Wikipedia entry, with an additional "(more)" link that provides examples of their work. I've also written about many of these people here, so just use the search field at right if interested in what I had to share.

In turn, in addition to providing comments on my thoughts above, I'd be happy to hear of people and topics that I may be oblivious to, especially as my focus is heavily on practitioners of entertainment and athletic arts. And even in those fields, I'm either largely or completely unaware of any active painters, poets, sculptors, cartoonists, columnists, jazz musicians or classical composers I should be paying attention to.

So feel free to bookmark this, and return to expand your horizons--and mine--when time and inclination allow. And, just maybe, share it with your kids.

Gary Larson (more)
Norman Lear (more, "All in the Family")

Friday, February 08, 2013

A General Sense of Disbelief

Cheating and lying, or even just wrongdoing and deception, have gone hand-in-hand for the entirety of human history.

But so too have witch hunts based on hearsay existed for eternity, with myriad lives ruined by untrue innuendo.

So especially in regards to matters that haven’t acutely affected my life, I have generally tried to give people the benefit of the doubt until it’s been proven that I shouldn’t. This doesn’t mean I haven’t been wary or skeptical about certain individuals, but I also must admit to a certain amount of choosing to ignore the likelihood of unproven impropriety.

For instance, I liked when Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire reinvigorated baseball by chasing and surpassing Roger Maris’ season home run record in 1998. Perhaps it should have dawned on—and conflicted—me that not just the baseballs were juiced, but I can’t deny I cheered heartily for Sosa’s many mighty blasts during that season and others (to remind, Sosa hit 292 home runs over 5 seasons from 1998-2002).

And while Lance Armstrong winning the Tour de France seven straight years was similarly unprecedented—and among some, disbelieved for its purported purity—I admittedly cheered on Armstrong's dominance in the world’s most arduous sporting event after his overcoming cancer that could well have been deadly.

Even now, after Lance has acknowledged being a longtime cheat, and quite a bullying one at that, I can’t work up all that much vitriol for him. Sure, he’s scum, but I really don’t care if he’s forced to give up his yellow jerseys and all his money, or not. Plus, not that I accept the "everyone else is doing it" excuse for wrongdoing, particularly in terms of banned PEDs (Performance Enhancing Drugs), but it's not outlandish to assume that if Lance didn't dope and didn't therefore win any or all of his Tours, another cheater would have.

Sosa also remains an enigma to my sense of justice as despite plenty of circumstantial indications that he used PEDs of some kind (steroids, testosterone, human growth hormone etc.), he never flunked a drug test and baseball’s ban on PEDs during his heyday was ambiguous at best.

Like Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Rafael Palmeiro and McGwire, Sosa was—by a wide margin—not voted for Hall of Fame induction this year despite clearly having meritorious stats, but unlike the others, there was no explicit evidence voters could cite against him. While I don’t think the writers who voted against Sammy were wrong, I see judgment based on unproven suspicion as a slippery slope.

I mean, why should Hall of Fame voters or anyone else presume that anybody is clean. (To be fair to the BBWA, perhaps they didn’t, as no one was elected to the Hall this year.)

Call me Holden Caulfield if you must, and blame Lance Armstrong, Alex Rodriguez, Ray Lewis and many, many others, but I can’t help but think that everyone in athletics and— hyperbolically—beyond is phony (or worse) until proven otherwise.

While this includes someone like Ryan Braun, the Milwaukee Brewers’ outfielder who I would prefer to be “clean” not only because he is a great young player but half-Jewish, it extends to people for whom PEDs is not the issue, but rather, false public personas (e.g. Tiger Woods, Joe Paterno, Manti Te’o, Notre Dame University, and their ilk).

Braun avoided a 50-game suspension for testing positive for testosterone in 2011 due to winning an appeal on a chain-of-custody technicality regarding his “positive” urine sample, but in my mind he didn’t erase doubts after initially proclaiming “I’m innocent!” and that he wanted to hold a press conference to give details of the entire situation. Now he’s connected with a Miami firm called Biogenesis (led by Anthony Bosch), which is suspected of providing PEDs to athletes, including several with University of Miami ties. (Initial Biogenesis story by Miami New Times; report of Braun's involvement, by Yahoo!Sports)

Braun doesn’t deny that he was listed as owing money to Bosch in the same black book that includes two of his U of Miami teammates (one who was a roommate), but released this statement:

"During the course of preparing for my successful appeal last year, my attorneys, who were previously familiar with Tony Bosch, used him as a consultant. More specifically, he answered questions about T/E ratio and possibilities of tampering with samples.

"There was a dispute over compensation for Bosch's work, which is what my lawyer and I listed under 'moneys owed' and not on any other list.

"I have nothing to hide and have never had any other relationship with Bosch.

"I will fully cooperate with any inquiry into this matter."

This may sound somewhat plausible at face value, but as Sports Illustrated baseball columnist Tom Verducci noted in a well-reasoned piece:
“If you accept Braun's explanation, when he was in his darkest hour -- fighting MLB on a positive drug test -- to gather expertise he went to someone who not only is not a doctor and not licensed to practice medicine, not considered to have expertise in chain of custody issues, but who also had been connected by MLB and the DEA, and known to the players association, to the 2009 bust of Manny Ramirez; it was Bosch's father, Dr. Pedro Bosch, who wrote a prescription for a banned substance to Ramirez.

“This latest report continues to expose the main vein in the Bosch story: the University of Miami, where the baseball stadium, named for Alex Rodriguez, sits across from the former clinic, Biogenesis. Braun, Valencia and Tigers pitcher Cesar Carrillo, named last week by the New Times, played together at Miami. Hurricanes trainer Jimmy Goins also was named by the New Times, as was Padres catcher Yasmani Grandal, a former Hurricane. Rodriguez, whose sizeable donation to the program led to his name on the stadium, has been known to train at Miami.”
I think you can understand why the benefit of my doubt is eroding, in the case of Ryan Braun and, consequentially, well-beyond.

No, I don’t believe every major league baseball player is taking banned PEDs—or at least I don’t want to—but the only thing that seems entirely true is that every athlete who has been revealed to be dirty, from McGwire and Palmeiro, to Armstrong and Marion Jones, etc., etc., had previously insisted that they were completely clean.

Clearly, if you’re going to cheat, you might as well lie. But the cheaters are not only corrupting sports, they’re doing a bigger disservice to anyone who might be playing fair and square.

Because it's gotten a whole lot harder to give anyone the benefit of my doubt anymore.

Tuesday, January 29, 2013

A Noble Man Honors a King -- Harry Belafonte Talks About MLK, January 29 at Northwestern

“We’ve come to a time when we’ve abandoned radical thought. Radical thought is essential [to bring about change].”

It’s amazing how the things I often prattle on about sound so much more sage, and eloquent, when voiced by an international legend—and human rights hero—like Harry Belafonte.

While at 85, the resonant tenor of the man who had the first million-selling album has been reduced to a rasp, as the Keynote Speaker at a Northwestern University program honoring Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Belafonte still spoke volumes.

Of course, the singer, actor and activist—who I learned much more about last year through the Sing Your Song documentary, and subsequently saluted in this birthday blog post—had plenty of history to draw upon, as he became a close confidant of Dr. King when both men were in their mid-’20s. Belafonte recalled how MLK initially called him and said, “I cannot do it alone.”

And to a Pick-Staiger Hall audience comprised largely of NU students, though also the general public, Belafonte’s speech had an underlying theme of devoting oneself to helping others, particularly the disenfranchised.

Though no longer the spry performer who enjoyed groundbreaking success in music, theater, film and television—at the very least, check out his Wikipedia bio—Belafonte began his talk by displaying the warm-spirited personality that once made millions of worldwide fans wild about Harry.

Following an impressive performance by the Northwestern Small Jazz Ensemble, a remarkably buoyant rendition of “Amazing Grace” by the Alice Millar Chapel Choir and remarks from Charles Whitaker—an NU journalism professor who co-chaired the event—and Evanston mayor Elizabeth Tisdahl, Belafonte was welcomed to the stage by Victor Shao, president of Northwestern’s student government.

Harry noted that it was the first time he’d ever been introduced by a person of Asian descent, but that as someone who had long traveled the world, he had joyously experienced “thousands of Japanese singing Day-O.” Belafonte also shared how his grandkids had teased him when he told them—before flying to Evanston from his New York home—that he’d be making a 20-minute speech: 'Grandpa, you can’t say hello in 20 minutes.'

But as Belafonte got to the heart of his speech, relaying how he and King had worked together on the “Poor People’s Campaign” shortly before MLK’s 1968 assassination, and reflecting on how upon hearing JFK—who he also befriended and advised—urge “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country,” he focused on what it meant specifically for black people, I doubt anyone was glancing at their wristwatch (including me, who always does).

In looking at the notes I took on Belafonte’s speech, which was followed by a brief on-stage interview by a journalism student, I am struck again at how masterfully he wove together themes of affliction, action and hope with equal depth and acuity.

He spoke of financial inequity, crippling levels of incarceration among African-Africans—“we build more cells than classrooms”—the loss of our “moral compass” under George W. Bush, improvements yet not widely realized remedies under President Obama and the terrible scourge of guns, for which he advocated “a radical movement to challenge the second amendment.”

Despite walking with a cane, Belafonte looked good and sounded sharp, but acknowledged his own mortality while expressing that gun control was “what I’m committing to in the last days of my life.”

Yet his endlessly impressive devotion to activism was nicely balanced by Belafonte referencing how his wife—who I believe is his third—and family were the most important part of his life, and that their support and understanding as he traveled the world and sometimes championed controversial causes largely enabled him to do all that he has.

Particularly moving, especially given the occasion, was when Belafonte shared being privy to Dr. King’s moments of doubt. ‘In the quest for integration, we are integrating into a burning house,’ Harry cited Martin telling him, to which Harry replied, ‘Then we’re going to have to become firemen.”

Without any boasting or braggadocio, Belafonte also looped in working on behalf of Native Americans and having been the motivator behind “We Are The World” and related African-relief efforts.

I apologize for reprising another of my common kvetches, but in watching Harry Belafonte speak I couldn’t help but again be chagrined over the relative superficiality and societal insignificance of so many of today’s so-called celebrities and—since they’re increasingly not one and the same—artists.

Much to my contentment and cognitive validation, Belafonte espoused how artists need to do more to stimulate the masses to address injustices, such as Wall Street fraud. And that everyone—especially those within institutions of higher learning—needs to share in a commitment to radical thought, the path to which, Belafonte voiced, “was the first thing the oligarchy sought to stamp out.”

As someone who often thinks and writes about societal transformations,  plagues, inequities and the like, yet sometimes can’t help think that I’m just pissing into the wind, it was personally quite gratifying to hear similar concerns conveyed by someone with such stature, perspective and gravitas.

So while many people who might well benefit from learning about Harry Belafonte and listening to him speak about activism, accountability and the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. will likely remain willfully oblivious, I greatly appreciated the salient sentiment as Harry acknowledged the choir standing on stage behind him, made a joke about preaching to it and shared the wise words once intimated by his friend:

‘Harry,’ Martin said, ‘you’ve got to preach to the choir. If you don’t, they’ll stop singing.’

Saturday, January 19, 2013

Seemingly, A Browsing Pastime is No Longer in Store

Of all the potential causes for personal and/or societal consternation, learning that the Best Buy near Old Orchard will cease to exist after February 3rd would not seem to be of grave concern (though the store does sit on land formerly belonging to a cemetery).

Not only am I not in the market for any new electronics or appliances, and whatever music and movies I still acquire in physical form can easily be shopped for online, but this leaves just four Best Buys within a 15-minute drive from my home (assuming none of those are also slated for closure).

While it was nice having a Best Buy—likely the store at which I’ve most shopped over the years—within 3 minutes of home, and I hope the store’s employees can be redeployed to nearby locations, I can’t
work up much vexation over an overexpanded retail corporation being forced to downsize.

But the news—and yes, I realize Best Buy sells much more than movies and music—bothers me on the heels of reading that the British music chain HMV, with 230 stores and 92 years in business, is “going into administration,” meaning that it has essentially collapsed financially and is looking for a buyer. None of its stores have yet closed, and perhaps can be saved, but I enjoyed browsing HMV in London, where—like in America—Tower Records and the Virgin Megastore went bust years ago.

I also read that Barnes & Noble began closing selected stores—in San Francisco, Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., Seattle, Chicago, Austin, Manhattan and Dallas—after a slow holiday 2012 sales season. And it seems that the spectre of B&N completely evaporating, like its old rival Borders, isn’t far-fetched.
So I ask you, where is a guy supposed to go to kill some time—and yes, buy some stuff? Especially, a guy like me who doesn’t drink coffee or (much) beer, isn’t supposed to eat ice cream or donuts and enjoys browsing, and buying, books, magazines, movies and music.
I used to love going to Tower Records, where they had a huge selection of CDs and DVDs, many great discounts, listening stations and pretty much every magazine ever published. But they went out of business in 2006.

Though in Chicago, the Virgin Megastore wasn’t nearly as convenient, it was cool to browse whenever I was on North Michigan Avenue.

In either Borders or Barnes & Noble, I could easily kill an hour perusing their vast selections, including great shelves of bargain books, of which I bought many. I think I got a book containing large color images of every Van Gogh painting for like $20. So it pains me whenever I see an empty, or converted, Borders store and I’ll really rue the day Barnes & Noble disappears.

And though Best Buy’s inventory of CDs (at its stores) is far short of Tower’s or Virgin’s, it is, or at least was, far more extensive than what you could find at Target or Walmart. Their prices on new release CDs and DVDs (and Blu-Rays) are invariably lower than anywhere else, and beyond often going to Best Buy to purchase a specific new album or film, it is also a store in which I can simply browse.

Not just for music and movies, but also to see what may be new in computers or printers or TVs or stereo equipment, etc., etc.

Certainly I recognize the changes in content distribution, and the resulting economic realities, that have caused bookstores, record stores and DVD retailers to dwindle and perhaps eventually disappear (though Best Buy is likely a separate case as a full-line retailer of computers, electronics and major appliances).

Although I will always value attractive and imaginative packaging as part of the popular music art form, and am old school enough to just like having a physical CD (with artwork, liner notes and lyrics), DVD or book, I realize that the quarterians—my term for those age 25 and under—deal primarily in digital music, movies and books, with or without paying anything.

So it doesn’t take a genius to deduce why huge stores with high rents and vast inventories of physical books, music, movies and magazines are going the way of the dinosaur. Even though I loved going to these stores, I probably proportionately never spent enough to keep them afloat, and of late have not only been buying less media, but doing it more so on Amazon or even iTunes.

But just because I understand why stores, and chains, like Tower Records, Borders, Barnes & Noble, Virgin Megastore, HMV and Best Buy may no longer be viable—either at all or in their current form—doesn’t mean I have to like it. (Though I do understand and respect the perspective of independent book and record store owners who were harmed, or even decimated, by these retail goliaths. But I can't deny I liked going to the big stores.)

And while sounding like a fossil clinging to a past that no longer exists, I believe there are cultural and commercial ramifications.

First, I think we are losing our shared sense of place and lessening human interaction in ways that aren’t good, but I won’t belabor this thought here.

But I also can’t tell you how many books and CDs I’ve bought because I noticed them in a store, and it’s highly unlikely I ever would have come across most of them online. Sure, they’re available on Amazon, but I wouldn’t have known to seek them out. I still like browsing physical merchandise, which goes back to my penchant for distinctive packaging.

While acknowledging that younger people haven’t been as indoctrinated into browsing for physical books, movies, music, etc.—and therefore don’t know what they may be missing—I wonder if HMV’s high profile stores in London (and ones like them in other big cities) could conceivably still exist, but primarily to promote digital purchases.

Of course, this would mandate a change in retail economics. Instead of stores and chains simply buying product from record companies, movie studios and publishers and then reselling them as their means of existing, the manufacturers/marketers would have to subsidize the existence of an HMV or Barnes & Noble so that shoppers could become aware of new & intriguing books, CDs, DVDs—even if they prefer to download a file rather than buy items in the store.

Given the cost of store rents and employees and the realities of Profit & Loss statements and other fiscal management factors, this idea seems somewhat impractical. Unless Apple (and perhaps similarly, Google and Microsoft) gets involved.

What if Apple leased space in each of its Apple Stores for publishers, etc., to showcase their physical media in order to drive digital downloads, which could be done right in the store.

And as this article notes, Amazon has already been considering opening bricks 'n mortar stores, in part to boost its sales through what Jeff Bezos calls “me-too product offering(s).”

Something like this could be a potentially smart solution. For though I like my physical books, CDs, DVDs and magazines, I’ve gone to electronic versions in some cases and realize that there are environmental benefits to greatly eliminating the need for packaging materials.

But I’m still convinced there are marketing and cultural awareness benefits to capturing our attention and interest via products and/or displays we encounter, including in cursory and passive ways.

And at the very least, the continued—if modified—existence of stores in which I can browse would serve to give me someplace to go.

Thursday, January 03, 2013

Whatever Happened to the Creative Cluster and "Can You Top This?" Artistic Competition?

“In 1966 Eric Clapton was the undisputed king of rock guitar in Britain. That was until Hendrix turned up on the scene. Jimi had only been in England for a week, yet there was already talk of this amazing American guitarist who had been creating a storm in London's blues clubs. In a particularly over confident gesture Hendrix asked if he could jam with Cream at their gig at Central London Polytechnic. Hendrix took the stage and tore through a version of 'Killing Floor' in double time. Cream soon regretted allowing him to join them. Hendrix's outrageous stage antics and dazzling guitar playing caused Clapton to leave the stage in a state of shock. He asked Chas Chandler afterwards "Is he always that fucking good?" (http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/sevenages/events/blues-based-rock/hendrix-jams-with-cream/)
“Raphael's work in the Vatican Stanze was open to the curious; while Michelangelo left strict orders that no visitors were to be allowed in the Sistine Chapel. Michelangelo, busy as a bee himself, consumed with a daunting task, apparently had little interest in Raphael’s work. But Raphael had an interest in his. Raphael paid a secret visit aided by the pope to view Michelangelo’s ceiling in progress. So profoundly did it affect him that he returned to his work in the Stanza della Segnatura (the pope’s private library), where he proceeded to pay tribute to Michelangelo by incorporating a seated figure of Michelangelo in the foreground of his masterpiece fresco, The School of Athens.” (Brenda Harness, Art Historian; http://www.finearttouch.com/Renaissance_Rivals_Raphael_and_Michelangelo.html)
“[Martin] Scorsese entered the Hollywood scene with peers like George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, and Francis Ford Coppola. Together, they were known as the "Film School Generation," (though Spielberg was actually a dropout) contributing highly to the "New Hollywood Movement" also known as the "American New Wave." These four stormed into Hollywood and quickly made their mark. Along with other filmmakers characterized in the New Hollywood Movement, they brought artistic integrity back into mainstream cinema and changed the way the game was played.” (Luke Hickman; http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/news/show/HDD_Study_Hall/Martin_Scorsese/
Luke_Hickman/Fun_Stuff/HDD_Study_Hall_Martin_Scorsese/8168
)
“On a visit to Los Angeles in April, Paul McCartney played [Brian] Wilson a song from [Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band], "She's Leaving Home"; later Wilson was said to be "deeply affected" by hearing a tape of another song, "A Day in the Life". Directly afterward, Smile was abandoned, and Wilson would not return to complete it until 2004, when it was released as a Brian Wilson album of the same name. Van Dyke Parks later noted, "Brian had a nervous collapse. What broke his heart was Sgt. Pepper." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Wilson)
“Though The Beatles stayed fairly up to date on popular music in the early 1960s, Bob Dylan wasn't on their radar until the spring of 1964, a full year after The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan established the young songwriter as American folk music's premier voice. Once the band heard that record, during a tour of France, it had an immediate impact on them. "For three weeks in Paris, we didn't stop playing it," Lennon would later say. "We all went potty about Dylan." The band's early hits, though deceptively complex, were clearly intended for a teenybopper audience more interested in dancing to backbeats than listening to poetry and acoustic guitars. After hearing Freewheelin', The Beatles—and especially John Lennon—were inspired to write more mature, narrative-driven folk songs in the manner of their new hero.” (Scott Beauchamp and Alex Shephard; http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2012/09/bob-dylan-and-john-lennons-weird-one-sided-relationship/262680/)

Through this blog, I spent the last two weeks extoling the music, theater and films that not only entertained me throughout 2012, but in large part sustained me.

Still, on days when I don’t have anything more acute to annoy me, I routinely find myself perplexed by what I perceive as a relative scarcity of newfound artistic brilliance pervading entertainment and cultural realms.

The seeming paradox isn't lost on me and I do not mean to disregard myriad examples of creative excellence exhibited by talented individuals in many fields, nor denigrate the wide variety of performances and creations that truly do enrich my life.

From actors amazing me within storefront theaters, to poets garnering rapt attention at public readings, to painters, photographers and sculptors peddling their wares at art fairs, to rock, jazz, blues, classical and other musicians making people smile—somewhere—every night of the year, and even to TV shows I enjoy week-after-week, there are innumerable “great artists” out there, who I admire and appreciate, many even without any direct awareness.

But while realizing the triteness of perpetually kvetching about how things used to be better, I genuinely believe that when it comes to transcendent artists of recent vintage with a modicum of mainstream relevance, it’s possible we may be at a historically low ebb. (Take a look at my Best Concerts of 2012 and Best Albums, and you'll notice a preponderance of old, or at least well-established, artists, rather than new ones.)

I’m not sure why this is, although I have to imagine the internet is somehow to blame, between splintering our attention, sensationalizing the superficial, simplifying the educational & creation process, abbreviating artistic gestation and aggrandizing the pursuit of the almighty dollar far above any aesthetic appreciation.

Yet this still doesn’t explain to me why I can only name a relative paucity of new artists—perhaps emerging since the turn of the century—who have a fair amount of mainstream acclaim, or who are, to my awareness and assessment, worthy of it.

Practitioners in the following realms used to be widely celebrated, but...
who can you name that has come to attention within the past 10 years or so and shown signs of historic significance in these areas: rock band, jazz musician, folk singer, classical musician, classical composer, Broadway composer, painter, sculptor, poet, movie director, movie star, stand-up comedian, cartoonist, photographer, dancer, architect, playwright and journalist?
If you can cite 10 names, combined, I’d be impressed.

Now, I realize that “historic significance” is open to interpretation and hard to judge without some chronological distance. And I really don’t know if people like Miles Davis, Allan Ginsburg, Roy Lichtenstein, Lenny Bruce, Joan Baez and Leonard Bernstein were truly household names. Perhaps their stature has grown once their legacies were shown to endure.

And I certainly realize my gripes are nothing new. Generation after generation, throughout history, has likely derided the relative fatuousness of subsequent ones. But my point here is really to point out that whether during the actual Renaissance or as exemplified by artistic torrents ranging from Impressionism to Bebop to the first 25-year surge of rock ’n roll, truly transcendent (or even just great) artists rarely developed or existed in a vacuum.

As illustrated by the anecdotes that opened this piece, talented creators—including many of the most historically exalted—have been inspired by their peers. And although nowadays, extraordinary gifted artists will still occasionally rise above the din, I really don’t see much evidence of what I call the “creative cluster effect,” in which great painters or authors or rock bands or movie directors engage in a (real or merely perceived) game of “Can you top this?”

Take for just one example, rock music in the 1960s. The Beatles exploded on the scene, having themselves been influenced by Elvis, Buddy Holly, Chuck Berry, Gene Vincent and other American rock pioneers. After the Beatles came to America in 1964, bands like The Kinks, The Rolling Stones, The Dave Clark 5, Herman’s Hermits, The Hollies, The Yardbirds and The Who would soon follow, and all these years later, much of the music made by these artists still holds up.

Of course, you also had Motown going on, with the Supremes and the Miracles and the Temptations and on and on, as well as other American vocal groups such as the Beach Boys and the Four Seasons. And with the rising tide of Vietnam in the background, Bob Dylan’s reverence for Woody Guthrie helped spur him to bring activism to pop music, with songs like “Blowin’ in the Wind,” “The Times They Are A-Changing” and “Masters of War.”

Over the next decade or so, these artists would directly or indirectly, and perhaps a bit coincidentally, push each other to musical heights that—in breadth and depth, within pop music genres—haven’t been topped since. As referenced at top, Dylan prompted the Beatles to get more political. And the Beach Boys’ brilliant Pet Sounds album clearly helped to inspire Sgt. Pepper’s, upon whose release the breakdown of Brian Wilson showed just how seriously the artists were about competing with each other.

After 2012, a year when I was hard-pressed to compile my Best Albums list with 10 releases I really liked (or at least that I can imagine caring about 5 years hence), it’s hard to fathom a year like 1967.

Take a look at the Wikipedia page for “1967 in Music” as well as the year’s page on the “Best Ever Albums” website. 1967 saw the release of two new albums, each, by the Beatles, Stones, Doors, Jimi Hendrix and Traffic, plus masterpieces from The Velvet Underground, Love, Cream, Leonard Cohen, Jefferson Airplane, Dylan, The Kinks, The Who, The Moody Blues and more.

One of the more astonishing things to think about is that the Are You Experienced? album by the Jimi Hendrix Experience—on which Hendrix introduced a plethora of new sounds—was only a decade removed from Buddy Holly’s astonishing yet much more musically quaint output. Does anything today sound that much different from 2002?

I truly believe the period from 1955-1980 represents a rock ’n roll renaissance that likely will never be seen again. Narrowing it down even just to 1964-1975, the amount of great musical artists who came of age—besides those already mentioned, the Byrds, Creedence, CSN, Neil Young, Elton, Bowie, Queen, Springsteen, Stevie Wonder, Marvin Gaye, Otis Redding, The Faces, Santana and many others—is rather mindblowing.

Now, I realize that we may very well be in the midst a “Creative Cluster” in the genre of Electronic Dance Music, which isn’t rendered inconsequential by the fact that I don’t care about it.

Similarly, even though it’s also a bit beyond my own personal tastes, I would argue that “Dramatic TV Series created by Cable TV Channels” may be our greatest Creative Cluster of the moment, with shows like Mad Men, Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones, Dexter, True Blood, The Walking Dead, Sons of Anarchy, etc. supposedly being among the best on TV. It also seems possible that dramatic television is the only artistic genre currently at an all-time peak. (Though for TV itself, I prefer the ’70s sitcom cluster with All in the Family, M*A*S*H, The Mary Tyler Moore Show, The Jeffersons, Sanford & Son, Taxi, Happy Days, Laverne and Shirley, Mork & Mindy, etc.).

Further countering my own hypothesis, which seems to hold up best largely in the realm of pop music, perhaps the ongoing Technology Cluster that has Apple, Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Amazon continually playing the “Can you top this?” game will go down in history as something of a Renaissance in its own way.

I guess it’s possible that we can only have a certain amount of Creative Clusters at the same time, and they come and go. I mean, if the 1930’s had a cluster of historically significant classical music composers, or the 1970s a cluster of museum-level fine artists, I can’t say that the practitioners of such readily come to mind.

So perhaps it’s just a matter of time before another Nirvana-Pearl Jam-Soundgarden-Alice in Chains-Smashing Pumpkins cluster comes along, or maybe in time I’ll eventually see the Tarantino-Fincher-Aronofsky-Coen Bros. cluster as estimable as the Coppola-Scorsese-Spielberg-Lucas cluster of the early ’70s.

In sum, I’m not really sure what my conclusion is, just that something seems lacking.

Inspiration, perhaps.

Thursday, November 08, 2012

President Obama, The Sequel -- A few thoughts on the election

Given the only realistic alternative, I’m happy Barack Obama was re-elected President of the United States, as I generally presumed he would be. 

Although—as I conveyed in this September article—I have been dismayed and disillusioned by his performance to date, and seriously considered either not voting or casting a ballot for Green Party candidate Jill Stein, there has never been any variance in my answer to this question:

Of Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, who would you prefer spend the next four years in the White House?

Any other answer, or opinion, was acutely irrelevant, so in early voting, I put a check mark next to Obama/Biden.

I would have been pissed had President Obama lost, as I feel that Romney represents a lot of beliefs that I don’t share (and could have wreaked a lot of havoc through potential Supreme Court nominees), but my feelings are less of euphoria—as in 2008 when I celebrated in Grant Park on Election Night—and more of wary relief.

If one believes, as I used to and would like to again, that Democrats are “better” than Republicans in terms of facilitating effective legislation on behalf of the common good—and not just the wealthiest among us, to whom most politicians are often beholden—than this election was rather uplifting, well beyond Obama’s victory.

In retaining control of the U.S. Senate, the Dems saw some rather progressive candidates elected (or re-elected) including Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin (the first openly gay politician elected to the Senate), Chris Murphy of Connecticut (who overcame Linda McMahon spending the most on a Senate race in history), Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts (who beat incumbent Scott Brown), Tim Kaine of Virginia, Jon Tester of Montana and Bernie Sanders, the stalwart Vermont independent who caucuses with the Democratic Party.

Additionally, the two Republican Senate candidates who said asinine things about rape—Todd Akin of Missouri and Richard Mourdock of Indiana—were properly trounced. As did other such candidates, as shown at left.

Two Democratic House candidates triumphed in Chicago’s long red western suburbs—Tammy Duckworth and Bill Foster—and as a blow to the intolerant influence of the Christian right, gay marriage was legalized in both Maryland and Maine, and also essentially "approved" in Minnesota. And a record 20 women will now serve in the U.S. Senate.

So those of us firmly on the left—or who simply believe that one’s class, race, gender and sexual orientation should in no way restrict his or her pursuit of happiness (and that receiving a helping hand needn’t be begrudged)—there are theoretically many reasons to by excited by the election results.

But until more is actually done to help more people—including those who have seen their homes foreclosed or become an underwater burden, individuals who can’t find proper employment and soldiers who give life & limb to conflicts of questionable upside—the current Democratic (with or without a capital “D”) paradigm is merely window dressing.

Much has and will be written by political pundits much smarter and better informed than I about what Obama’s substantive but "not a mandate" victory will mean for the direction of his presidency. So far, I have heard it suggested that he must become more centrist and do a better job of seeking bi-partisan cooperation in Congress.

I say no.

While I truly wish our legislators would work cooperatively and collaboratively to create laws for the common good—from the richest to the poorest—this kind of thinking is why Obama got nothing done in his first two years and lost control of the House. He thought he would influence both parties to play nice and work together to enact his agenda.

Didn’t work. And logic says it won’t. While I understand that political realities will always dictate some give and take, I believe the President has to be progressive in pushing for laws that most benefit the most people while harming the least. In other words, he has to push his agenda through despite oppositional resistance, if at all legislatively possible.

Whatever needs to be done so that 1 of 6 Americans don’t go to bed hungry needs to be done, even if it means a few billionaires pay a good bit more in taxes.

Whatever it takes to get the economy moving and get 23 million unemployed people back to work—in good jobs—needs to happen.

Because you know what, although Wall Street seemingly dislikes Obama (the Dow dropped over 300 points on Wednesday), a robust economy is good for the 1% too.

So I’m not suggesting actions that merely ostracize and punish the “corporatocracy,” but rather that encourage it to spread the wealth in the name of universal progress—by hiring more employees, loosening the credit market for small businesses, etc.

Yes, we must rid Wall Street of fraudulent practices that rip a hole through the entire world, and yes we much ensure the financially fortunate pay their fair share in taxes. We also must curtail the undue influence of corporations and the uber-wealthy in politics, and I think we need to genuinely explore reducing our military spending.

I won’t continue to rail about policymaking admittedly over my head, but my point is that rather than simply saying it—with his phenomenal oratorical skills—President Obama must do more to fight for the fairness he (I hope) believes in. Fairness that virtually everyone, regardless of who they voted for, will support.

It’s easy to perceive that people vote based on their “values,” with minorities supporting Democrats and white Christians supporting Republicans, by and large. But look at Ohio. The bailout of GM shifted the balance, with enough Caucasians supporting the President to give him another 4 years.

If you make people’s lives acutely better, they’ll stop voting as much based on religious beliefs. And except for possibly the top 10% of the top 1%, most Americans really have more in common than our polarized political maps would have you believe. Give people safety, security, dignity and a steady paycheck and the rest is all details.

So in being glad Barack Obama will lead the United States for the next four years, I want him to step up and do what he knows is right. For everyone. Stop being a Wall Street apologist, start listening to guys like Paul Krugman more than Tim Geithner, and really enact change.

Even if it’s difficult. Even if it’s “unpopular.” Even if the “Right” hates it. Even if some of the “Left” hates it. Making a difference never goes hand in hand with being universally beloved.

Mr. Obama, you've been ratified to remain the leader of the free world for the next four years; the stage is still set for you to do great things. I gave you my vote with the hope that you do but one thing:

Truly lead.

Wednesday, September 26, 2012

Not a Contradiction of Conscience, Just the Apple of My iPhone

My iPhone 5 arrived from China yesterday and has already supplanted my iPhone 4 as the single best product I have ever owned.

Mind you, the home button of my iPhone 4 had become largely unresponsive and the battery seemed to drain almost completely every single day, even with only moderate use. Also, when I spoke without using a headset, people often couldn't hear me.

So durability may not have been the 4's finest feature, but this is how I justify—to myself—why I needed to order a 5, which shipped from China because I didn’t care enough to bother camping out at an Apple Store.

Of course, an even truer reason is that I have loved my iPhone since I got the initial version in December 2007, then upgraded to the 4 in June 2010—never bothering with the 3, 3S or 4S. Being qualified for an upgrade, I candidly couldn’t resist acquiring the newest and coolest edition.

Is it absolutely necessary? Of course not. I lived without an iPhone for 39 years and without any cell phone for roughly 30, and in some ways was probably better off for it.

Will it make me cooler, smarter, richer or happier? No, no, no and not substantially.

Is it worth the $200 it cost? Depends on how you look at it. If the choice was between getting an iPhone 5 and covering my mortgage, paying for prescriptions or buying food, of course it wasn’t necessary. But if you consider that I don’t have a home phone and that in 2012, I’ve spent $0 on shoes, outerwear, small appliances and computer software, almost nothing on office supplies, under $50 on alcohol (for home use or at any & all venues/establishments), less than $200 on new clothes and basically nothing on bank account/ATM fees, if the iPhone 5 falls into the Household/Personal Supplies & Services category, I think I’m well under budget.

Yet a friend asked me--jokingly, but I've heard this line of reasoning elsewhere--given how disdainful I am about the devastation wreaked by the "corporatocracy," don't I feel any moral compunction enriching the most successful corporation on Earth? Perhaps now even more so given the worker riots at an iPhone factory in China.

Similar, but much more venomous incredulity, has been spewed in the direction of Occupy protesters and other activists. "They hate the rich, but yet they have iPhones," goes the logic (I used the term loosely). "Don't they see the irony of buying into what they're supposedly protesting."

Simply put--without proper knowledge to loop in the dissension of the Chinese protesters or their reasons--this line of thinking is silly, even stupid. I don't speak for anyone else or what they may believe, but, in short:
My ire over the (used as shorthand) "1%" has never been about envy, wealth, living well, non-egregious/elitist materialism, consumerism or even uncorrupted capitalism.
What I--and imaginably others--repudiate is corruption, fraud, rampant greed & tax avoidance among those with at least tens of millions, and a lack of both humanity and fairness.
This is a bit tangential, but recently it was revealed that Mitt Romney said something to the extent of not caring about the "47%" of Americans who don't pay taxes and mooch off the government (his incorrect statistic and insinuations, not mine). While all of my liberal friends lambasted this line of thinking, I imagine there were other people who shared Mitt's derision over perceived freeloaders. That's their right, even if I find such elitism repugnant, but it also ignores the truth that numerous Wall Street millionaires, even billionaires, would have lost everything they had--by losing bets they consciously made--if not for being bailed out by the government. So by Mitt's logic, it would seem the system should provide a safety net for the rich, but not basic sustenance for the poor.

So what I really want is a fair playing field, not for companies to fail or rich people to vaporize.
I have no problem whatsoever with anyone who earns a fortune honestly and earnestly, based on intelligence, effort, talent and/or ingenuity, and gives their fair share back to society through taxes and charitable contributions.
In fact I admire it.
While I don’t care much about overt materialism, and have never aspired to Mercedes or mansions, I certainly like being able to enjoy my life. Who wouldn’t?

Obviously, this means different things to different people, in terms of how they spend whatever money they have to be spent in discretionary ways. Some people like fancy shoes or pricey jeans. Some people think it’s important to send their kids to parochial schools. Some people easily drop $50 or more on a night of casual drinking.

As long as it’s legal and doesn’t harm anyone else, I certainly don’t begrudge anyone what they wish to spend their money on. And I’d be the last to advocate that we all must live spartan lifestyles in order to be soulfully satisfied.

This blog certainly portrays my passion for attending a wide array of live events, and occasionally my love of travel. While I try to do both as inexpensively as possible—with ticket discounts, accumulated airline miles, alternatives to paying for parking, willingness to sit in the cheap seats, etc.—clearly these are areas where I spend a fair share of money.

But any parent who has ever had to pay for just one child to get braces has likely outspent my yearly entertainment and travel outlay in an area in which I’ve never had to.

And especially in being once again gainfully—and gratefully—employed (at least for now), well, I don’t think I have to belabor my justification for spending $200 on a new iPhone.

As for further enriching the corporatocracy or buying into a system I think is largely nefarious, perhaps I am guilty of some inconsistency of conscience--and I certainly don't condone the gross mistreatment of workers in the name of profit, if such was the case at the Foxconn factory in China--but I see no ethical dilemma in my purchasing a new iPhone, nor anyone with reasonable means to do so. 

As I said at top without meaning to be hyperbolic, the iPhone is the best product I've ever owned. From the initial launch in 2007, which literally changed the face of all subsequent technology, no product has been better designed, or concept more magnificently executed beyond expectations, than the iPhone. Sure, there have been a few minor engineering missteps, but over intervening 5 years, Apple has made quantum leaps in making the iPhone even better. 

When I got my iPhone 4 in 2010, I was shocked by how much sleeker and cooler it was than my iPhone Classic, which had seemed sublime in every way upon release.

Now, with the iPhone 5 in my hands, I am stunned by how clunky the iPhone 4 appears in comparison. 

To patronize, and yes reward, a company that makes a brilliant, revolutionary product and then keeps improving upon it has absolutely no relevancy to my chagrin about the damage done by the people at Goldman Sachs, AIG, Lehman Brothers, Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, etc., who made, then lost fortunes by playing casino games with synthetic CDOs and the like. (For a good briefer on some of the people and practices that deserve to be despised, check out Matt Taibbi's writings for Rolling Stone.)

Does this mean I believe that everyone at Apple is a wonderful, benevolent soul doing all they should for the common good? Or that Apple itself is entirely virtuous and pure? Heck no, and while his contributions to the world of technology were astonishing, I've long gleaned that the late, great Steve Jobs wasn't always a wonderful guy.

But he sure as heck deserved to get rich, even more so than he did. He essentially created the personal computer, the Macintosh, the operating system nicked by Microsoft, Pixar, the iMac, iPod, iTunes, iPhone, iPad and more. Capitalism should reward someone like that, even exorbitantly, and I have no problem further enriching Apple for continuing to do great work. They've become uber-successful because they've deserved to, not because they bilked their clients or pushed numbers around and wound up destroying a huge chunk of the world's wealth.

Besides, the iPhone 5 is just damn cool. And I like it.

Tuesday, August 28, 2012

Another Mind Numbing Mindset List (and My Attempt at Some Alternate Entries)

Beloit College recently released its latest Mindset List, an annual exercise ostensibly aimed at pegging the proclivities of its incoming freshman class--in this case, the Class of 2016.

I applaud the presumed intent of the list--beyond getting national press each year for the small liberal arts college--which is seemingly to note how our world changes, and with it, the reference points of 18-year-olds.

As an advertising copywriter, it is important to remind myself that younger generations may be rather oblivious to touchstones that are second nature to me, whether the names of the four Beatles, the notoriety of Oliver North, the exploits of Refrigerator Perry or simply "the Yellow Pages."

But as I ranted about in depth two years ago upon release of the Class of 2014 Mindset List, with several laudable exceptions--and this year's rundown seems a bit stronger than some recent ones--I believe the Beloit list makers miss their mark in large part.

Although the introduction to the list describes it as "an internationally monitored catalog of the changing worldview of each new college generation," to me, too many of the items included fail to be substantive earmarks of how society has shifted.

I get that part of the point of the list is to alert the older crowd to things that teens are likely not tuned into, so it's okay to cite some things that adolescents may never have heard of. I also realize the difficulty of citing truly transformative changes that are native to a single year any more so than the few before or after it. And noting the preponderance of Google, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, iPhones and texting is not only a bit too obvious, but now somewhat dated.

But--as pointed out by a critique of this year's list that I enjoyed--per #4 on the Beloit list, does anyone really consider Michael Jackson's family American royalty? Or, per #37 (see the whole list here), has the fact that "Martin Lawrence has always been banned from Saturday Night Live" really affected a generation's mindset? Or anyone's? And per #39, has the fact that "The Metropolitan Opera House in New York has always translated operas on seatback screens" truly altered the consciousness of your average teen?

While insights like #13--"They can’t picture people actually carrying luggage through airports rather than rolling it"--and a number of others are rather astute and reflect a difference between the proverbial then and now, too much of Beloit's list consists rather flaccidly of simply "Things that happened in 1994" (i.e. the birth year of most new freshmen).

Yes, in 1994 or early 1995, (#10) the movie Dumb and Dumber was released, (#36) Steven Breyer joined the U.S. Supreme Court, (#43) the World Series was cancelled, (#44) Aleve first became available, (#49) the World Trade Organization was formed, (#50) L.L. Bean changed the name of their hunting boots, (#64) Robert Osbourne has been hosting films on TCM and (#75) The Sistine Chapel ceiling was cleaned, but I fail to see how these things--and several similar examples--have genuinely affected the mindset of teens. Or that their ignorance to some of these things really differentiates their outlook from those of people a bit older.

For other reasons, I also have a problem with two of the list's football tidbits. (#14) says "There has always been football in Jacksonville but never in Los Angeles." This would be rather shrewd if the word "pro" was added before "football." As it stands, #1 ranked USC might take offense. And given that Beloit is in Wisconsin, I get the appeal of (#19) "The Green Bay Packers have always celebrated with the Lambeau Leap." But given that those born in 1994 would be acutely oblivious to anything that occurred before 1998 at the earliest, I think something such as "Aaron Rogers is the only quarterback they've seen lead the Green Bay Packers to a Super Bowl victory," would be a bit more telling. Noting that Brett Favre's greatest glories--relatively recent for many of us--are almost a full lifetime ago for college freshmen is, IMHO, more revelatory than the Lambeau Leap inception date.

Anyway, with the caveat that my suggestions below are also imperfect, partially because I could easily have repeated many of the 20 things I cited in my 2010 post--such as noting that Generation Z has likely never used a physical phone book or map, will never speak to a travel agent or open a car door with a key--here is Seth Saith's list of things that might significantly distinguish an 18-year-old's mindset from my own, soon-turning-44, worldview (I should note that I don't have kids and am rarely around teenagers, making many of these more presumptive than observational):

1. They never saw (or don't recall seeing) Michael Jordan play basketball, except possibly with the Washington Wizards.

2. They don't remember when Apple made products that didn't begin with a lowercase i.

3. Many have likely never ridden in a car that didn't have airbags.

4. Lollapalooza is known to them only as a festival held in Chicago.

5. They have never seen a good new Keanu Reeves movie.

6. They have never personally asked to sit in a smoking or non-smoking section.

7. They are unaware that Dave Grohl was in a band before the Foo Fighters.

8. The Curse of the Bambino means nothing to them.

9. They have never looked for movie showtimes in a newspaper.

10. Eddie Murphy's claim to fame is as the voice of Donkey.

11. The alternative to Internet Explorer has never been Netscape Navigator.

12. They have never used a cassette and likely never seen one.

13. They don't know how Princess Diana died or who she was with when she did.

14. They have never used a card catalog in a library.

15. They couldn't pick Al Gore out of a lineup.

16. Friends and family have always been reachable, even while driving.

17. They have always been able to see Olympic events in real-time. Err, scratch that.

18. They don't know what 35mm refers to.

19. Steroids have always been more prominent in baseball than Astroturf. 

20. They have always been able to see openly gay characters on prime-time network TV. 

21. They have never licked a stamp, and possibly never used one.

22. The most successful golfer of their lifetime is (half) black. The most successful rapper is white.

23. They don't remember the squeak of a 56K modem.

24. They have never used a pay phone.

25. UFC is a credible sport covered on SportsCenter; boxing is a joke in which the best fighters avoid each other.

26. They may not realize that George Bush declared war on Iraq in 1991, before his son did in 2003.

27. Julia Roberts isn't all that famous.

28. Any prime-time programming they've seen has potentially included ads for Viagra and other erectile dysfunction medications.

29. The best player in baseball today was a high school senior when they were freshmen.

30. Dracula was once the only significant pop culture vampire (until the Interview With A Vampire movie was released in 1994?)

31. The Kardashians. Enough said.

32. They've probably never gone to a store named Kinko's.

33. Jeremy Piven has always been more famous than John Cusack. 

34. They've never laughed at The Far Side.

35. Only Christian Bale has been Batman.

36. They know the songs from Wicked better than those from The Wizard of Oz.

37. Being able to see satellite imagery--and street views--of your home is no big deal. 

38. The futuristic Guggenheim museum designed by a visionary architect named Frank is in Bilbao, Spain, not New York City.

39. They don't know how astonishing it is that Keith Richards is still alive. Or who he is. 

40. They have never waited in line to buy tickets. 

41. Paul Newman is known as a purveyor of pasta sauce and salsa, not one of the greatest movie stars ever. 

42. One day they'll be surprised to discover that Words With Friends is a lot like Scrabble. 

43. They don't find it strange--still--to see the Manhattan skyline without the Twin Towers.

44. Stadiums have always been named for corporations. 

45. They seemingly don't realize that jeans were once designed to cover one's behind.

46. The Jersey Shore has always been represented by Snooki, not Springsteen. 

47. Many have read every Harry Potter, Twilight and Hunger Games book, but not The Da Vinci Code and nothing by Stephen King. 

48. They have never seen a Woolworth's store or a Service Merchandise catalog. 

49. Most have never tried to see 3D images in a Magic Eye illustration.

50. They have never needed to use a 9-volt battery.

They may not be able to fill in many of the following blanks:

51. Roget's ____________

52. _______ & Ebert at the Movies

53. Calvin & _________

54. Ross, ________, Monica, Chandler, Phoebe and _________

55. ________ Expos

56. Hootie & the _________

57. Hanging _had

58. The ______ Gretzky

59. "MMM____" by Hanson

60. The _ _ _ Bug that was supposed to strike at the turn of the century.