Science and Music

When I was a child, my parents and my sister argued about the Beatles on Ed Sullivan, a classic trope of generational conflict over taste. Looking back from the third phase of life that family quarrel (which never ever quite resolved itself) and the old line about not knowing art but knowing what you like (arguably first uttered in the New York Times in 1880:" I don't pretend to know much about art; but I know what pleases.") just keep bumping around in my head these days but with a slight variation...now I am thinking I may not know much about science but science sure doesn't know music...or not in any way that is 'helpful' to the human condition.


I love music, love listening to it at my desk, in the car. I listen when I am moody, mellow, anxious or serene. I listen to immerse, to distract, to concentrate and to learn. I learned about music from my parents, who had a floor cabinet stereo system and a few 78s and a lot of 33's. Some of what they liked to play, I still like to listen to: Roy Orbison, Otis Redding and Harry Belafonte. My most consistent musical favourites I acquired through personal exploration in the 1960s and 1970s: Bob Dylan, The Rolling Stones, Leonard Cohen, Neil Young. When I worked at CBC radio, I was constantly learning about new musicians and new genres of music. The list of who I will and do listen to could go on and on. But I fear that some folks are intent on making music about something other than music.

The past few weeks  news feeds and newsites have been filled with stories purporting to make definitive comments on music rooted in 'science,' or, more accurately, in algorithmic analysis, lyric content analysis, suspect on-line surveys and a host of other big data analytic tools  used to make the news equivalent of click bait. The upshot of the 'news' is: Nickleback has or doesn't have 'the smartest lyrics', people stop listening to new music at age 33 (earlier if you are a parent) or don't, pop music is increasingly about advertising, that the biggest changes in music were in the 60s but in 1991...and without doubt there is more to come. Predictably, each time one of these 'studies' was released, the media both old and new when nuts.

What types of music we listen to is often portrayed as one of the key markers between generations, cultural groups, class etc. Who you like to listen to, simply reveling in the joy of performance, composition, sound, meaning and memory, has been turned into a means of division, a matter of separation rather than what it should be: a remarkable defining characteristic of what it means to be human, to be truly alive. As you can probably guess there is even a Buzzfeed quiz that bets it can guess your age by the music you listen to.

Don't get me wrong, there is much that science and music can tell us about the human condition, the idea of memory formation and even how the healthy brain works and the unhealthy one doesn't. In an earlier post, I made mention of Daniel Levitin, the neuroscience and musician who is constantly finding out new things about the brain, music and the link. And that's the science we should be paying attention to, the stuff that elevates us, that makes us think, not the stuff meant to divide and distract.

But the flood of 'news stories' did trigger one nagging thought. You do have to keep finding new music. New sounds, new ways of interpreting life are important and keep the brain working. Just don't fool yourself into thinking that the only 'new music' was music produced yesterday. I am learning more about blues musicians I had never heard of, listening to recordings and performances by people dead before I was born. New is just shorthand for new to you. In that sense new is good. P

Staying Home

Where I live has always mattered to me. I am happiest in a space I can be myself in, a space I can arrange to suit my tastes and needs and the tastes and needs of those I choose to share my life with.

In the Third Phase, questions about home take on new meaning. For those who've had children, there are decisions about "downsizing." For those who've had homes in cities where real estate has jumped in value, there are decisions about selling and moving - "cashing out." But move where? A condo? An apartment? A smaller home in a smaller town? For those who are struggling financially without any secure pension or job there are questions about how to pay for an apartment in tight markets.

But in all those questions there is an assumption that, physically, we can manage our living situations.

Hanging over us all though is the question of what will happen when we can no longer take care of ourselves or, for many, no longer afford rent or property taxes. For some those question have to be faced earlier in life than expected; for others they are made in a rush after a fall or the discovery of a disease. Few of us want to think about our final home, but in the back of our minds, even the minds of jogging, fit and disease-free third-phasers looms the last phase of life decision about a home where we will receive care and respect.

That's why it terrifying to hear news about abuses in homes for seniors or stories, like the one from Quebec, that Andre Picard so chillingly analyzed, about whether more than one bath a week is a luxury requiring extra, black market payments.

In the United States it's predicted that by 2035 those over 65 will make up 20 per cent of the population. The fastest growing demographic group there is now over 85. The Conference Board of Canada says this country's senior population will double in the next 25 years. Where will all those people live and how they will all be cared for, especially those without means to afford private care?

For our third phase we chose to get out of the city and settle in a house in a small, beautiful town. We chose a house that works for us now - much of it is on one level, has enough space for us to have offices to work from home in and a garden for me to indulge my need to get my hands dirty. So far it has proved the right decision for us. We did try to think ahead too: we have a house that we should be able to manage for at least 15 years or, fingers crossed, twenty.

But as I climb ladders to put on screens or dig a hole for a new fruit tree I wonder if this house will be manageable for that long. And if not, hope that we can carefully select the additional costs we will have to make to get things done. And hope, we get governments who will offer assistance to stay in our home. I want to pick the fruits (pear, cherry, paw-paw) of my labours.

When my mother lost her mobility she continued living for a time in the town house my father and she had bought after selling their highly needy, old farm house. A nurse from the Victorian Order of Nurses came to help her with her bath and hygiene. She had no wish for her children to visit just to bathe her and found the nurse a comfort. Then when she knew that wasn't enough she moved herself into a home with care.

And that's what I want too - to stay in our house as long as possible and to not be a burden on our single child with a busy life of her own just trying to get by.

So the option of "aging in place," appeals to me immensely. And I'm not alone. It's what most seniors want. But it takes foresight, luck, money and a government willing to include that option in it's wheelhouse of how to help the aged. Sure, we'll need well-inspected private and public care facilities and lots of them but letting the old live as independently as they can needs to be a real, well-assisted possibility. D

The "Luxury" of Retirement

Whether or not the Third Phase of life is a positive or negative experience depends on a lot of different things, not the least of which is money or as the bankers like to say "financial security." Worrying about money happens during every phase of life in varying ways and to different degrees, but worrying about money in the Third Phase is becoming both a deeply important personal issue and a very compelling public policy argument. In recent weeks, the issue of the financial independence of older citizens has been the subject of financial reports, political worrying, class anxiety and really snarky ill-informed commentary. 

In a new study by HSBC a stark reality was laid out: "half of Canadians either plan to ease into retirement by working reduced hours before hanging it up for good or have no plans to ever quit."Now we can argue about the methodology of the survey but the reality is that lack of resources to retire has long been a concern of planners. A year ago the news was just as grim: “I think there’s a broad consensus that we are heading for a retirement income crisis,” said Murray Gold, managing partner at Koskie Minsky law firm, and a pension specialist who advises the Ontario Federation of Labour. “Two-thirds of the workforce doesn’t have any pensions, and the kinds of pensions we have aren’t as good as they were 20 years ago." The positive spin on the idea of never retiring is that some people like to keep working for the love of working but what is increasingly true is that for many people staying in the work force is not a choice. And when no choice is involved the consequences are very real, nasty and divisive to all of society. As one U.S. publication argued: "One of the cruellest manifestations of widening inequality happens in life's final quarter." Some people spend more on their funerals than many people have to spend on a year of retirement. 

There are increasing signs that this 'income crisis' being experienced by older citizens is having an impact on politics. Last month's Canadian budget held real treats for older voters, not so much younger ones. If voters are poor retirees, policy decisions will be skewed both in the short term and the long term. And it is not just politics that will be warped. Policy planners are trying to figure out just what"Delaying Retirement Means For Younger Workers." Here's the bottom line concern: the longer older people remain in the work force the harder it is for younger workers to advance in the workplace, the harder it is for young people to build families, and futures and to even consider their own retirement. And this is not just a problem affecting the old and the young but it is also squeezing hard on the generation in the middle. One of the best places for keen analysis and interesting perspective is Generation Squeeze, a new and intriguing lobby group. As they like to say: 

Under 49 and feeling squeezed? You’re not alone, and governments are failing to adapt.

These are tough issues and ill-informed commentary doesn't help. Margaret Wente at the Globe and Mail has lept into the fray or hopped onto the bandwagon of questioning "senior discounts" arguing that seniors are wealthy and don't deserve the breaks from corporations or government. The reality is that she and the Institute for Research on Public Policy are just ignoring the truth that many seniors lack the wealth Wente has and giving breaks to different groups of citizens is historically the to and fro that makes society work. Seniors pay property taxes so schools are funded and seniors get help with snow removal because of obvious physical realities. Everyone benefits and to suggest otherwise is wrong and shit-disturbing at the lowest level.

We need a discussion that helps us navigate the real economic conditions of all levels of society. Not one-offs intended to simply pit different generations against each other. P