The past isn’t what it used to be

Here at Mission, one of my fellow residents is quite old — 99.

I thought about that a little bit. So he was born in 1922. That’s not right. Surely a 99-year-old was born in the 1800s. Horse-drawn carriages, not Duesenbergs and gin.

I think that way because for so much of life, it was true. But time advances, and now 99 years reaches back only to the Jazz Age, instead of the McKinley administration.

Jason Kottke has something he calls “The Great Span”: “(T)he link across large periods of history by individual humans.” The last surviving child of a Civil War veteran (and thus drawing an Army pension) died in 2020. Units of 99 years (sometimes called “Bettys,” after Betty White) definitely qualify, but it’s stunning how quickly that event horizon moves on.

At least to this 60-year-old.

No stain of cruelty…

“As a man, his character cannot be spoken of too highly; no stain of cruelty or faithlessness rests on him.”

That’s an old fashioned, but quite wonderful, assessment of a life. It comes from the 11th Edition Britannica, discussing Étienne Macdonald, one of Napoleon’s marshals.

(To explain his surprising last name: His father was a Jacobite exile, who was of Bonnie Prince Charlie’s retinue. The elder Macdonald married well, giving his son the background to have a chance to advance in the Army.)

In the Icebox

“Another of this wonderful woman’s wonderful sayings (I told you—I got a million of ‘em; don’t make me prove it) was “Milk always takes the flavor of what’s next to it in the icebox.” Not a very useful saying, you might think, but I suspect it’s not only the reason I’m writing this introduction, but the reason I’m writing it the way I’m writing it.
Does it sound like Harlan wrote it?
It does?
That’s because I just finished the admirable book which follows. For the last four days I have been, so to speak, sitting next to Harlan in the icebox. I am not copying his style; nothing as low as that. I have, rather, taken a brief impression of his style, the way that, when we were kids, we used to be able to take a brief impression of Beetle Bailey or Blondie from the Sunday funnies with a piece of Silly Putty (headline in the New York Times Book Review: KING OFFERS EERILY APT METAPHOR FOR HIS OWN MIND!!).”

— Stephen King, from his introduction to Harlan Ellison’s Stalking the Nightmare

Shelves

Michael Chabon has done an interesting project, that he calls “The Shelves of Time.”

“An imaginary reconstruction of the Fantasy & Science Fiction section at Page One Books, Columbia, MD, as aggregated and averaged by memories of regular, intense perusal during the years 1972-1980.”

It’s a kick to see many of these covers again, many of which I imagine will be familiar to y’all. It’s also a strange glimpse into Chabon’s mind.

https://msha.ke/handmadeplaylists#the-shelves-of-time

How video streaming got fragmented, in a picture

There’s a version of this RIAA infographic going around that’s a) total revenues, and b) not adjusted for inflation. “Total revenues” includes subscription revenues, ie Spotify (or as Ulrika calls the model, ransomware).

This is sales only, and also unadjusted for inflation. But I’m calling your attention to it for two reasons:

  • iTunes was a big deal. iTunes really did replace CDs, for a while. But that meant Apple got a 30% cut. It is difficult to overstate how much resentment this caused at the labels. And a few labels were owned by movie studios (Sony/Columbia, Warner Bros., MCA/Universal). Which leads to…
  • When Netflix was small, the studios didn’t care. But when Netflix kept growing, and looked like it was going to become an iTunes-like gatekeeper… Well, this graph shows why they decided to setup their own streaming sites. They were damned if they were going to get snookered again (from their point of view).

Now, it looks like video streaming really does benefit from economies of scale, and fragmenting the market is probably going to lead to everyone except Netflix imploding. Had the studios just stayed out of things, let Netflix take their cut, and kept everything consolidated, vast amounts of capital expenditures using shareholder cash wouldn’t have been wasted. Everyone would have been fat cats.

But there’s that damned ego problem. Faced with a second gatekeeper, the studio execs had to give it a try, other people’s cash be damned.

Oh, well.

Not all bridges go over the same water

One of the things about music services like Spotify, Apple Music, or YouTube (and if you don’t think of YouTube as a music archive, you’re missing a bet) is how you can look up songs and find covers you never knew existed. Take “Bridge Over Troubled Water.”

Aretha Franklin – goes right back to her gospel roots. After a quick Aretha and choir intro, we get a two minute piano and Hammond organ duet, followed by Aretha and choir returning, with a building set of accompaniment.

Johnny Cash – this is late Cash. Spare, raspy, you can almost see the whisky and cigs nearby. Fiona Apple comes in about verse two, and does harmonies. Not displeasing — they work — but even I was surprised by the choices she made. (Ask Ulrika about that one.)

Elvis Presley – in an eerie parallel to his career, the first verse is a real surprise. Sparse, clean, clear, restrained. Then, with each succeeding verse, the accompaniment becomes more overbearing, complete with a soprano of the school of what Stan Freberg called “vapor girl.”

Roberta Flack – just a woman and her piano. A drum set comes in later.

As you listen to them all, you get to appreciate Art Garfunkel’s original clarity. Sure, his tone is an acquired taste, but everyone else has enunciation problems by comparison. You can always understand Art’s words.

EDIT: It’s spooky to hear the cast of Glee’s version, which is a note-for-note copy of Aretha’s. Instrumentation, arrangement, vocal flourishes, the lot. Oh, ok, they cut back on the piano and Hammond thing, but it’s TV — time constraints. But everything else.