RIP - If You Thought 2016 Was Bad . . .

. . . it only gets worse from here.

It seems like nary a day goes by without the loss of a music, film, sport, or literary legend. Prince, Bowie, Mose Allison . . . the list goes on. Cries of "2016 needs to be over already!" plaster the Facebook feeds.

Well, it's only going to get worse. Like for the next 35 years or so. One more thing to suck about getting old.

Actuary that I am, I took a look at demographic and mortality trends among potential 'legends' and projected out the number of deaths we can expect in a year. But first, some definitions and some assumptions.

Who should we include in our pool of potential legends? I took a couple of approaches. First, the youngest to pass away this year was probably Prince at 57. In addition, if we assume a full career of at least 35 years and start them at 20, we get to 55. This eliminates the Paul Walkers and Buddy Hollys of the world (and John Lennons and Elvis Presleys so there may be an argument for moving the line lower, results will not change). Finally, drawing the line at 55 may miss the occasional Jay-Z, but most folks my age would not consider his passing a tragedy, so we start with a cohort of 55 years old or older.

I used United States data only because it's handy. I assumed legends matched the U.S. population in terms of distribution (probably more male than average) and mortality (hard to say - they've lived hard lives, but are, on the whole, wealthier than average and better able to care for themselves). I did no intra-year distributions of death. For you geeks, I used the RP-2014 mortality table without improvements. Here's what 10,000 Americans aged 55 and over look like in 2016 according to Census Bureau projections:

 

This is what life insurers would call a 'closed block'. We're not going to add new legends each year so when they're gone, they're gone. You'll note we have a fair number in their 70s, but many more coming from behind: the Mark Spitzes, the Bruce Springsteens, the Phil Collinses. This cohort will be driving the news for years to come.

When we apply mortality to this group, the future looks like this:

Again, this is deaths per 10,000 'legends'. A steady increase for the next 20 years or so, peaking at a rate about 50% higher than 2016. If you're lucky enough to live that long, get ready for a lot more bad news.

Could This Be the End of the Cubs?

If the Chicago Cubs come back from a three game to one deficit to win the Worlds Series tonight, they will have earned it and then some. Even if there is some Denkenger-esque controversy that denies the Indians the title, the Tribe should have slammed shut the door and never let it come to this. If the Cubs snag their first title in 108 years, I'll be the first to congratulate them.

But are Cubs fans sure that's what they want?

Because if the Cubs win, they're no longer the Cubs.

At least not the jinxed lovable losers everyone outside of Chicago can root for - the bumbling cousins of professional baseball that makes everyone else in the family look good. No, if the Cubs win, no one without a tie to Chicago will care one whit for the Cubs. They'll just be another baseball club.

Sure, they look to keep the momentum going for a few years and the bandwagon in filling up fast, but when they go back to finishing 20 games out (and everyone does sooner or later), what will you be left with?

• Fans that show up in the 4th and leave in the 7th like the Dodgers.
• No one outside of the North Side that cares when Wrigley finally gets torn down and the team moves to Aurora to play in Facebook Field
• A pennant run up the flagpole, yes, but a century of gritty tradition, of baseball as it used to be, of ivy covered walls and bleacher bums flushed down the toilet.

In short, just another cookie-cutter club to be milked by corporate America.

Is that what you want Cubs fans? Because if there's a win tonight, it's not for the ghosts of Harry & Ernie & Ron, it's for you.

Can you live with the result?

What the Hell Am I Listening To? - Keyboard Edition

"Tuning a mellotron doesn't." - Robert Fripp

A recent lunch where I managed to misidentify the keyboards on 96 Tears by ? and the Mysterians twice(!) plus a podcast from The Word entitled 'The 40 Noises That Built Pop' spurred me to put together this handy keyboard identification guide. Two caveats: this only goes up to the early 80s because, well, most music sucks after that AND I am not a keyboard player so jump in and correct me or point out any glaring omissions. And with that:

The Mostly Mechanical

The Hammond B3

The granddaddy of rock 'n' roll keyboards, the B3 worked by placing pickups near rotating metal tone wheels. If that weren't enough vibrato, they were often fed through rotating Leslie speakers that produced a Doppler effect on the listener. So many examples to choose from, but most every one is familiar with this Procol Harem classic:

The Clavinet

Essentially an electronic clavichord, the clavinet struck strings which were then amplified, but lacked the release mechanism of a piano. This action, similar to a guitarist's 'hammer-ons', produced a very percussive sound. Here Stevie Wonder drives the clavinet through a wah-wah pedal:

Fender Rhodes

The Rhodes uses metal tines struck by hammers to produce the initial wave form that was subsequently modified and amplified giving it a unique, smooth sound:

The Mellotron

This unwieldy, cantankerous mainstay of the Prog Rock idiom worked by running magnetic tape over playback heads. The tapes were actual samples of the instruments being emulated and in some cases the original string players are known. The use of tape and motors gives the Mellotron a unique sound that may capture the spirit of the original instrument, but introduces nuances of its own. Though the Moody Blues first brought the instrument to prominence, this cut from Genesis is one of my favorites:

And yes, kids: that's Peter "Sledgehammer" Gabriel on vocals and bat-head with Phil "Susudio" Collins on drums. The transition from the 70s to the 80s was rough on everyone.

The Transistors

The Farfisa

The Farfisa was born of a transistor accordion placing it somewhere between the mechanical and truly electrical. Sometimes confused with its close cousin the Vox Continental (below), you can hear it on the intro to this Percy Sledge classic:

Vox Continental

Designed as a replacement for tone-wheel organs like the B3, the Continental graced songs from "House of the Rising Sun" (1964) to Mark Knopfler's "Beryl" (2015). This is what you hear on "96 Tears". Dig the reversed key colors:

The Moog

The Moog (along with the ARP) was one of the first commercially available systems that could truly be called a synthesizer, albeit an analog one. After being introduced at the Monterey Pop Festival in 1967, it spread quickly through the rock, pop, and, with Wendy Carlos, classical music worlds. A novelty hit in the 70s is probably its best-known exposure:

Finally, Digital

Yamaha DX7

Once dubbed "the worst sounding keyboard ever", the DX7 was the first commercially available digital synthesizer. It's poor reputation probably stemmed from overuse in the 80s and its association with schmaltz from groups like what had become of Chicago here:





From here on out, synths became more sophisticated and commonplace (even Queen finally gave in), able to replicate formerly unique timbres. Once that gave way to sampling, who knows what's making that sound? But for pre-1985 music at least, now you know what your listening to.

On Lent

I am not, nor have I ever been Catholic.

I have, however, observed Lent for the last 35 years or so - at least the 'giving something up for Lent' part of it. There may be more involved. I don't know. I'm not Catholic. It started in solidarity with my best friend from high school, Matt Corso, who was Catholic, and has continued as an exercise in self-discipline and an antidote to Christmas/winter/Super Bowl/Mardi Gras face-stuffing.

I recently posted on Facebook that I was giving up 'toes' for Lent (a term I stole from a Toastmaster buddy, Cathy Babis - you know, Doritos, Cheetos, Fritos . . .) and asked what others were foregoing. Judging from some of the replies, you'd thought I'd drug a smoking censer and communion wafers into their home.

"I'm giving up the constraints of organized religion"

"Stupid religious practices"

Really? I get that you're tired of being the minority in a (nominally) religious culture. I really do. Me too. But let's not throw the good aspects of religion out with the bad. I've argued for years that religion has no monopoly on 'good'. Nor does it corrupt all it touches. A syringe can have a flu vaccine in it or it can harbor heroin. It just delivers the goods. It's up to us to use our God-given (sorry, couldn't resist) brains to tell the difference.

I'm no sociologist either, but maybe some of these practices developed because they worked. Some may have only seemed to work, but are ingrained now as superstition, some may no longer be needed (hygiene has come a long way since Moses), but some 'religious practices' may actually be good for you whether the culture that developed them knew why they worked or not.

So think this over:

Quieting the mind and being receptive to your subconscious thought process can help with your decision making - you don't have to call it 'praying about it'. (1)

Making a behavioral change for 40 days can lay the groundwork for new habits. Sometimes self-discipline is the only discipline people have. If you go back to your old ways, at least you learned something about yourself - you don't have to call it 'Lent'. (2)

Slowing down to recharge your batteries once a week can make you more effective the rest of the week - you don't have to call it 'Sabbath'. (3)

Not being an asshole helps make your time on this planet more enjoyable for all of us - you don't have to call it 'karma'. (4)

Giving your body a chance to process the crap you've already eaten without cramming any more down your pie hole probably does it some good every now and then - you don't have to call it 'fasting'. (5)

The same can be said for your mind - you don't have to call it 'meditation'. (6)

On the other hand, no way am I giving up bacon (no one has that much self-discipline). Happy Lent people.




(1) “Muddy water, let stand, becomes clear.” ― Lao Tzu
(2) . . . or 21 days (Maltz) or 66 days. You get the point. https://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/hbrc/2012/06/29/busting-the-21-days-habit-formation-myth/
(3) http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/11/health/sleeth-take-day-off/
(4) http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/12/pharma-bro-arrested/420954/
(5) http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-intermittent-fasting-might-help-you-live-longer-healthier-life/
(6) http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/features/meditation-heals-body-and-mind