Saturday, September 15, 2012

Mom, Dad and American Pie


Periodically this summer, National Public Radio aired a series of remembrances under the heading “Mom and Dad’s Record Collection.” In these pieces, per the description NPR host Melissa Block gave at the outset of the final one on September 7, listeners shared stories “about their parents’ music, and one song that stayed with them.”

I found most of the pieces I happened to hear affecting in some way, and I mean at some point to catch up with the others, as they’re all available on NPR’s Web site. But the final interview in the series particularly moved me and put me in a reflective mood, because of the particular song that was spotlighted and the inconceivability that anything like it would’ve been in my own parents’ record collection.

Block introduced the segment by saying she believed she’d already wrapped up the “Mom and Dad’s Record Collection” series when an e-mail came in from a woman in Cincinnati named Mel Fisher Ostrowski that prompted her to conduct one last interview. As the two women began talking and Ostrowski’s tale unfolded, I quickly saw why Block had elected to un-retire the series.

The song Ostrowski wanted to discuss was folk singer Don McLean’s “American Pie,” a sprawling ballad from a 1971 album of the same name that begins nostalgically with the lyrics “A long, long time ago/I can still remember how the music used to make me smile.” It proceeds—first tenderly, then rockingly, then, finally, in the manner of an Irish wake—to seemingly, but never explicitly, tell the story of the 1960s, bookmarked at the outset and end by rather more clear allusions to the February 3, 1959, death of rock ‘n’ roll pioneer Buddy Holly at age 22 in an Iowa plane crash.

I wrote “never explicitly” because, for all of the song’s seeming allusions to societal watersheds of the 1960s and the musical artists who chronicled or paralleled those events, McLean himself has never gratified those who’ve asked him what the song’s all about, except to confirm that he had learned of Holly’s death while folding newspapers for his paper route—echoing the lyrics “February made me shiver/With every paper I delivered/Bad news on the doorstep.” McLean has steadfastly refused to say more on the subject, preferring that the words speak for themselves and be interpreted however listeners might choose. (He once responded, cheekily, that what his monster hit really means is that "I never have to work again.”)

I loved McLean’s opus—at 8 minutes and 33 seconds, the longest song ever to top the Billboard charts—the very first time I heard it, relishing even as a teenager its catchiness and the depth evident beneath its singsong chorus about “Good old boys drinking whisky and rye/Singing this’ll be the day that I die.” It undoubtedly helped, too, that I was, and am, a huge Buddy Holly fan—a guy who, like the narrator of “American Pie,” grieves for the deceased’s “widowed bride,” as well as all the great music the gifted songwriter and performer never got a chance to make.

But, back to Mel Fisher Ostrowski, who by the definition of  “Mom and Dad’s Record Collection” must  be quite a bit younger than me. McLean’s American Pie LP, after all, was in my record collection, not that of my parents’. (In fact, I may still have the vinyl album, but I’m afraid to assess the condition of the LPs that long have been moldering in boxes in our basement crawlspace.) What had attracted Ostrowski to American Pie, and to its title track in particular, was the fact that they conjured for her a father she'd barely known.

As she recounted to Block, she’d been only around 4 or 5 years old when her parents split up, and 10 when he died. One of the few keepsakes from her father that she possessed in her girlhood was that one LP, which had been his and was adorned with his name--as punched out on one of those old plastic label makers that had seemed Space Age in their ingenuity back then. (I owned one, too.)

This is verbatim, from the transcript, what Ostrowski said about the song “American Pie:

“We would listen to it as a family, me and my siblings, or I would put it on and play it myself. And it became kind of a conversation between me and my dad—a memory that never really happened, because we didn’t listen to it together, my father and I. I never saw him play it. I never heard him sing it. But I knew he liked it, because he bought it.”

Block mentioned the song’s complexity and all the parsing that has surrounded it over the years, and said she couldn’t imagine a little girl having been hooked by any of that. “Oh, no,” Ostrowski confirmed, “I just liked to dance to it.”

But later, she continued, she researched the song and came to appreciate it for much more than its merely its beat. It became, she said, no longer “just something that I liked to hear. It told a story, and I love stories. I memorized every lyric—all eight minutes of it—and it kind of became my anthem.”

But the song’s greatest gift to Ostrowski was to come. In spring 2011 she had a son named Owen. And wouldn’t you know, the one lullaby—what are lullabies, after all, but stories?—that would calm his nighttime tears and soothe him to sleep was his mother’s (presumably gentler and less rocking) rendition of Don McLean’s “American Pie.”

“It’s really nice to have this happy, peaceful memory, this uncomplicated gift I can give my son and say, ‘This is from me, and it came from my father’,” Ostrowski recounted. “And I still sing it to him all the time. … Even if he falls asleep, I finish it. Because the ending is so soft and sweet.”

Ostrowski then cried a little, before concluding the segment by softly singing that soft, sweet ending. Should you go to NPR’s site and listen to the entire piece without shedding a tear yourself, you’re a tougher soul than I. I was driving at the time, and I suddenly noticed the road getting a little blurry.

Here’s the thing, though. The pathos of Ostrowski’s story led me to consider for the first time my own parents’ record collection, and whether any song from it has “stayed with me”—that is, whether any single tune remains memorable to me in any way, for any reason. I had to conclude that the answer is no.

I think back on my parents’ record collection when I was growing up, and what strikes me first and foremost is how different middle age was then from how it is now. It’s in some ways startling to me to note that my dad didn’t turn 40 until 1968 and that my mother was only 38 when the 1960s ended, because their musical tastes reflected nothing of youth and everything of bland middle age. My parents’ record collection in the 1960s was not comprised of the Beatles and the Rolling Stones, or even of the Buddy Hollys and Elvis Presleys of the previous decade. It was entirely a catalog of, to put it bluntly, elevator music. The Mantovani Orchestra. Percy Faith. Lawrence Welk—whose show we watched at my maternal grandparents’ house, to my mom and dad’s rapt enjoyment.

What could there possibly be for me to indelibly remember, to this day, about that ripple-less sea of snooze-inducing strings and banal “champagne music” that had all the life and vivacity of the famously autocratic Welk’s constrained definition of fun?

I guess I’m choosing to think of Mel Fisher Ostrowski’s father as having been not that much older than was I when he bought American Pie, because my thesis is that, while youth now has come to be considered a state of mind, in earlier generations it was more like catching lightning in a bottle: You bought Elvis records if you were a teenager at that time, but if you were older by then—even just 20-something—you already were past the age of adoption and adaptation. How else to explain the fact that all the great rock, folk, and soul acts of the 1960s—Jimi Hendrix, Led Zeppelin, Janis Joplin, Bob Dylan, James Brown—passed my parents’ notice with no more than a derisive sneer (I still remember my mom hooting in a vaguely racist way at Aretha Franklin’s “conniption-fit screaming”), if indeed those artists were noticed at all?

Why, I could no more have opened my parents’ record cabinet and found a disc comparable in musical interest and lyric complexity to “American Pie” than I could have found Ken Kesey on their bookshelf or sandwich bags of weed stashed deep in a dresser drawer. Now, I realize not all of my parents’ contemporaries were quite as square as were they. Somebody other than teenyboppers was buying all those hip jazz albums back then, for example. My boyhood friend Michael Newman’s father worked in the recording industry, and even possessed a drumstick that had been used by Ringo Starr. But my parents, predictably, found the Newmans impossibly bohemian, subversive and wholly unfit to reside on our suburban cul-de-sac. (I still was in elementary school when they apparently picked up on the neighborhood vibe and hightailed it to some hipper burg.)

Still, I do think the times must've had a lot to do with why, were I have to mulled NPR’s bait at the beginning of the summer, I’d quickly have given up on trying to identify a single song I associate with my parents that has stayed with me over the years. Unless we’re talking about those moments when I’m ascending an elevator, or have been placed on hold by a utility company or dentist’s office. At which times my parents’ entire record collection comes to mind, as I unsuccessfully stifle a yawn.


Friday, September 7, 2012

Our Generations


Pete Townshend of The Who was 20 years old when bandmate Roger Daltrey first shouted Townshend’s sentiment “Hope I die before I get old” in the song “My Generation.”

Two years later, in 1967, a 25-year-old Paul McCartney of The Beatles asked, "Will you still need me, will you still feed me, when I’m 64?”

So, here it is, 2012, and the results are in. Pete Townshend didn’t die before he got old. He’s 67. (In fact, he’ll be in DC in November and might play “My Generation” as an encore to The Who’s performance that night of Quadrophenia.) But in an interview a few years ago, Townshend clarified his youthful lyric. “I hope I die while I still feel this alive, this young, this healthy, this happy and this fulfilled,” he said. Meaning that while he’s grown chronologically old, he hasn’t yet reached dotage in the dreaded senses of infirmity, pain, and palpable and escalating decline. What Townshend was saying in a nutshell was, “I still want to die before I’m a drooling and possibly senile invalid.”

As for McCartney—who, like Townshend, is one of two surviving members of the quartet that made him famous—he’s now well past 64 (70, in fact), yet seems very much needed by his new-ish third wife, is well-fed in both diet and adulation by his monetary riches and continuing fame, and like Townshend, he appears to be in good physical shape (the obvious facelift and dye job notwithstanding).

The two rock survivors are hardly alone, of course, in having effectively and heartily Lived To Tell About It. We’ve all heard in recent years about how advances in science, medicine and general living conditions over the past century have combined not only to dramatically lengthen human life spans, but also to offer the promise of further advances in the coming decades. Two articles I read recently nicely encapsulated the scientific possibilities, potential scenarios, and promise and perils of very long life.

Both pieces were written by the same journalist—a science writer named David Ewing Duncan—and draw from research and survey results contained in his recent e-book, titled (wait for it) When I’m 164. I first read his article “How Long Do You Want to Live?” in the New York Times. It opened with the startling statistical nugget that the life expectancy of Americans has jumped since from 47 to 80 since 1900; further noted that the United Nations anticipates life expectancies over the next century will approach 100 in the developed world; suggested that recent discoveries in genetics and regenerative medicine may add many years of life to the UN’s figure; yet noted that surveys conducted by the author show little enthusiasm among the currently-living for the chance, 50 years from now, to open a birthday card that gently teases, “Lordy, Lordy, Look Who’s 140!”

That article led me to a companion piece of sorts that Duncan wrote for The Atlantic, titled “When I’m 164: The Societal Implications of Radically Prolonged Lives.” In that article, the author detailed the primary arguments for and against “radical” elongation of our earthly existence, as expressed by thousands of respondents to surveys he’d distributed to lecture audiences and had offered online. Duncan first had asked people how long they wanted to live—giving them choices of 80, 120,  150 years and forever—then asked a subset of respondents what they would find attractive and, conversely, negative about a lifespan of 150 years (close to the 164 in the headline).

About 30,000 people told Duncan how long they wanted to live, and “several thousand” shared their perceived upsides and downsides to life as a 150-year-old man or woman.

Interestingly, 60% of the respondents opted for the current Western lifespan of about 80 years. Less than 10% chose 150 and fewer than 1% embraced immortality. On the follow-up question—"What do you think would be awesome, or not, about living half a century beyond getting a birthday greeting on TV from  Willard Scott?" (my wording)—the following pluses and minuses most often were cited:

One-fifty or bust: You’d have more time with friends and loved ones. Geniuses would still be alive. You’d get the chance to see the future. There’d be more time to accomplish your goals. Science might develop ways to delay or even prevent the pain and suffering of old age—your old age.

One-fifty?! Just kill me now: That long a life might simply mean prolonged frailty. There’d be a huge financial burden—familially and societally—to bankrolling extended lives. You’d experience more of the depressing vicissitudes of life (job loss, depression, illness, violence, divorce, etc). You’d be around for more wars and disasters. You’d witness and be affected by the environmental devastation wreaked by people like you who just won’t die. It might mean extra decades of shear boredom. There might be unequal societal access to new anti-aging “cures.”

Underlying all this, of course, is the fact that—as tends to be the case with pesky things like the future—more is unknown at this point than is known. We know what’s possible, but not where that will take us.  Duncan writes, for example, of one drug under development to treat inflammation and diseases that may prove to slow the human aging process—or not. Then there’s ongoing stem cell research that might produce solutions to complex problems in the brain and nervous system—eventually. Might there one day be a pill or a drug cocktail that can help give senior citizens the bodies of 30-somethings? That’s possible, too. Might that happen in your lifespan or mine? That’s far less likely. But who knows?

My personal feelings on extended life are shaped primarily by two things: 1) My conviction that the world’s going to hell in a handbasket, and 2) my long and rather close acquaintance with very old senior citizens through years of volunteer work.

With nobody doing anything terribly meaningful about global warming and its devastating environmental and societal impacts; with nuclear terrorism seemingly inevitable given the vast stores of scarcely policed or catalogued materials strewn about all over the world; with the mounting threat of cyber warfare that would turn our lights off and throw the world into economic chaos, with … well, you know where I’m going with this. Do I want to be around when the fecal material hits the breeze-producing device? I think not.

And then there’s the whole matter of the quality of those additional years. Maybe 80 will be the new 60 by the time I reach it, assuming I do. But, will 100 be the new 80? Because I’ve seen 80, and it’s often ugly. Ninety? Even more so. I’ve gotten to know many wonderful seniors in the past 20 years. We’ve had  great conversations and a goodly amount of laughs, and I’ve enjoyed helping in minor ways to make their lives a little easier or simply less tedious. Still boredom prevails, as do all manner of age-related infirmities and indignities. These are not, by and large, happy people. They don’t feel well, they’ve outlived family and friends, they’re lonely. Often they’re addled and confused. They don’t understand what the hell has happened to them, and why they must relive that frightening displacement every waking day.

So, tell me: Where’s the pill that preserves dignity as well as bodily organs, that evokes well-being in addition to easing arthritis?

Until that pharmaceutical is on the market at a reasonable price—and until reason and sanity prevail in the world, in stark contrast to current trends—I’ll keep my natural lifespan, thank you very much.

I liked the quote with which David Ewing Duncan ended his New York Times piece, so I’ll share it here. Albert Einstein had refused surgery as he lay dying of an abdominal aortic aneurysm in 1955. Far from seeking the “genius grant” on longer life that some futurists envision, what Einstein said was this: “It is tasteless to prolong life artificially. I have done my share. It is time to go. I will do it elegantly.”

How might 150 ever look and feel? Fantastic, for all I know, thanks to the wondrous science the future. But count me as skeptical. “Elegant” isn’t the word for it that springs to mind.