Background Music

When cooking, washing dishes, or cleaning the toilet, I find that listening to music and singing along make the tasks not only tolerable but pleasurable. (Yes, I do pity anyone within earshot.) 

What about playing music when writing? A lot of research is available on this topic. If you start at "Should We Turn Off the Music? Music with Lyrics Interferes with Cognitive Tasks" a study appearing in the National Library of Medicine website, you will find the results, while mixed, point to lyrics posing distractions to thought processes. 

I would not say that I listen to music when I am writing. But the music is on. I call it background music. I hesitate to share the music I play for two reasons:

• I do a disservice to the great musicians, whose talents are worthy of my complete attention. When I do listen to them play, I am moved emotionally and even spiritually.
• The background music of choice depends on the phase of the writing process I am engaged in. Am I planning, drafting, or rewriting?

Having made those disclaimers, I listen almost exclusively to jazz, and occasionally classical, but never to vocals, unless they're of the Philip Glass non-lexical sort. Indeed, Glass's music can be quite focusing. Bill Evans, one of my favorite pianists, is great to have in the background, and greater when paying close attention. Even unorthodox pianists like Thelonious Monk and Lennie Tristano make for helpful background music.

For me, the problem with listening to music with lyrics is capturing the right rhythm of my sentences. That's the very reason why having instrumental music in the background enables me to craft rhythm in a passage. 

Another disclaimer: I wrote this post in a public park, where the background music was a symphony singing birds and screaming children. So enjoyable. 

Remembering on Memorial Day

Since May 5, 1868—some would argue unofficially before then—the United States has set aside Memorial Day as a time to honor its nation's fallen military personnel who sacrificed their lives for their country. No one can be more worthy of a national tribute for their bravery in the face of danger and for their role in changing the world. 

It has surely crossed most of our minds that Memorial Day means to most Americans just a day off from work, a downtown parade, a barbecue, and a lot of traffic. I try to avoid those sentiments by memorializing people who were once in my orbit and changed my world. I can think of my parents, father-in-law, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, friends, teachers, bosses, coworkers, and artists who are no longer here in the flesh. I make a point of talking about them to others, to let them know how these people influenced and inspired me with their courage, wisdom, insights, humor, and vision. I shall always remember them for their role in making not only my world, but our world, a better place. These champions, these kings and queens, encourage me to be a better human being and to do my share in paying forward whatever I can.

When I go to that Memorial Day parade or barbecue, I will remember those spirits who still lead me to the clearing. There are so many to remember and to be grateful for.

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

I remember playing softball when I was 13 years old in the PS 100 schoolyard across the street from the James Monroe Housing Project in the Bronx. My team was up by one run in the bottom of the ninth inning facing an opponent with runners in scoring position and two outs. We needed only one out to win. I was playing second base hoping a line drive would come my way to make the final out and go home victorious. In fact, the batter hit the ball well over my head directly to the right fielder, our team's weakest defensive player. What would have been a routine catch for all the other players on the field went past the right fielder. Our team lost on a walkoff error. Eight of us were good ball players and one was not. So we lost. That moment might have been the time I learned the meaning of "A chain is only as strong as its weakest link."

The truth of that expression has emerged time and again throughout my life. The time one fearsome bully in my high school English class threw a rock at the teacher's back, causing us all an afternoon of detention because no one dared snitch on him. Or when I could not suspend my disbelief while watching a staged play because only one actor from an otherwise outstanding cast of eight was hamming it up, ruining the whole theatrical experience. Or the one customer service agent from an employee workforce of ten thousand who acted rudely, spurring me to never again buy from her company. Or the forced lyrics of a song for the sake of rhyming without regard to the verse's underlying meaning, transforming the song from ethereal poetry to mere doggerel. Or the lone wolf bad cop trampling on a citizen's civil rights, reflecting poorly on his entire precinct. These weak links fail to do the right thing. Whether willfully or thoughtlessly, they mess things up for the rest of us. And we must share some responsibility for that.

But some links might be the weakest in the chain through no fault of their own. Think of developmentally disabled individuals, paralyzed war veterans, innocent victims of physical attacks suffering permanent physical injuries, all of whom cannot do the tasks of their more physically capable counterparts. Or survivors of terrorist incidents, who suffer permanent trauma. Or hardworking but poorly paid laborers who cannot afford to make their children look as refined as their wealthier classmates. If it is true that the chain is only as strong as its weakest link—and we know it is true—then we are a sorry society if we, the supposed stronger links, do not do our best to care for these souls, and then we ourselves are weak.

Perhaps you have an aging father who cannot function without your help, or a child who needs your protection and guidance, or a mate slowly recovering from invasive surgery, or beloved relatives unable to speak the language of the country in which you and they live. I have met people who detest illegal immigrants, yet they themselves are the offspring of illegal immigrants; people who demand retribution against criminals, but not when that criminal is a family member; people disgusted by the homeless but whose heart goes out to a homeless person who aided their mother when she fainted from heat exhaustion on the street; people who hate those on public assistance but gladly accepted public assistance if some disaster befell them.

I say all of this because our world is in a strange time. Not one political party, but all of us, look the other way when people in government break the very laws they created and are sworn to enforce. We do not seem to mind that those laws apply in the harshest terms toward some of us and do not apply at all to others. We are living in a paradoxical Catch-22 situation, teeming with hypocrisy, contemptuous of morality, scornful of common sense. I am not romanticizing the old days, abundant with  gratuitous military actions, segregated school systems, marginalized women, and institutionalized disabled people. But in those times, advocating for ending the Vietnam War in the face of a million corpses, marching for Black Americans in light of lynchings and coloreds-only water fountains, calling for legislation on behalf of women's rights in view of inequitable treatment, and protesting for individuals with disabilities upon consideration of their second-class status appeared even to the most reticent among us to be responsible exercises of civil duty at best and  definitive proof of civil rights at worst.

What has changed? It is not a question of what our predessors had that we do not. It is the precise opposite. What did they not have that we do? The answer is technology. The pervasiveness of social media makes everyone an author. Anyone can broadcast on their favorite apps what now passes for news, and it's uninformed news fabricated to vent frustration, resentment, anger, and animosity. People  believe those dangerous lies out there because they speak to their basest prejudices and fears. And we're becoming worse for it.

What can we do about this dystopic world where disinformation flows into our minds at perpetual tsunami force? Three practices come to mind. These endeavors take some effort, like exercising, dieting, praying, studying, or childrearing. We can act decisively in our capacities as consumers, communicators, and citizens to recapture our better selves.

As consumers, we can cancel subscriptions to social media that allow stories and commentaries based on unfounded information. It’s easy to decide what information is based on reality. When a Facebook ad laments the passing of your favorite celebrity, simply go to an alternative source like the New York Times or Wikipedia to corroborate it. This does not mean you should trust the New York Times or Wikipedia. Fact-check them too. I have given up entirely trusting any news source. BBC, a news service frequently cited as reliable, recently devoted the entire half hour of one of its broadcasts to the irrelevant Prince Harry’s plea for monarchy support at a time when Ukraine was torn by war, innocents were dying in Gaza, and oligarchs were enriching themselves at the expense of everyone else. I do not support any one source. If you do not want to cancel social media subscriptions, you can at least not spend one second of your scrolling time stopping to view a ludicrous, fictitious story passing as reality. Doing so will make these stories fade away. Ignoring works wonders with amoral technologies concerned only with impressions, likes, and screen time.

As communicators, we have two responsibilities: what we say and what we hear. We can speak the truth. When we hear something we know to be a lie, we should call it out. When we are not sure whether what we are hearing is true, we can simply ask our phone: Did so-and-so die today? Who recognizes the Gulf of America? Has the United States deported its citizens? How many people were killed in Gaza? It’s not hard at all. As listeners, we can avoid sources that commonly lie about or exaggerate facts. Here we should consider not only news outlets and social media but acquaintances too. I am not saying to stop being friends with such people, but to limit conversations with them to matters like “Do you think the Yankees will beat the Dodgers this year? When is trash pickup day? How much do eggs cost in your town?” Small talk has its place. At least we won't lose friends over it. 

As citizens, of course we can demand more from our representatives. But that’s just talk. In truth, we must demand more of ourselves. We are part of this problem. It’s not someone else’s fault; it’s ours. Still, we can wonder aloud—to be heard by others, allies and adversaries alike—why the situation is so out of hand. Once our fight for the truth is loud and clear, our representatives will join in that fight for us. Positive change will then be inevitable.

I was uncharacteristically at a rock concert the other night. The music was blasting from the speakers from where I was sitting 40 feet away from the stage. A toddler, perhaps the child of a stagehand or musician, was allowed onstage and directly under the stage for the entire 90-minute show. As I was shaking my head in disbelief, my friend said, “By the time she’s twelve, she’ll be deaf. Who the hell are those girl’s parents?” True. But it takes a proverbial village, baby. If we continue to do nothing when someone flicks a lit cigarette in a draught-stricken forest, we will burn in it.

"Please call me if you have questions."

Have you ever noticed that some people call you with questions even if you did not close your message with "Please let me know if you have any questions"? And how many thousands of times have you written "Please let me know if you have any questions" without getting questions from your readers? Contrarily, have you observed that sometimes people don't call you with questions when they should, because they clearly don't understand what you told them or mess up on what you have instructed them to do? For all these reasons and a few more, I wonder about the value of that overused closing. 

If you have been in the work world for a while, you know that the daily messages you write could number in the hundreds. We're on autopilot, some of our responses running a single word, like "Done," "OK," "Yes," or "No"; some cutting and pasting previous comments; others embedded in the previous message. We know all the shortcuts. We must, otherwise we would never finish our work. Who has time for anything else? 

I no longer see the point in closing a message with "Please let me know if you have any questions" or its hybrids. I can understand a closing that says, "I look forward to receiving your response" to accentuate the urgency of a message. Or "I will be at meetings all day but at my desk for the rest of the week" to indicate your availability. Or "Since this new procedure will likely require a learning curve, you can click here for the Help Desk" to express support. Or "This proposal will stay in effect for 30 days" to encourage your client to act. Or "If we do not receive a response by Thursday, 12:00 p.m., we will close the case" to cover yourself. Give some thought about the next step for the reader. 

Of course, your reader will contact you with questions, even if you don't tell them to. You might think "Please let me know if you have any questions" is better than nothing. I think not.

Audience Awareness, Part 2: The Dialogue Method

 A way to address your audience's concerns is what I call the dialogue method. Consider yourself in a dialogue with every possible reader. For example, let's say you wanted management to hire an expert organization to provide customer service training to your Call Center staff, and ten executives show up to your pitch in the conference room. Here are some questions they might ask:

Chief Communications Officer (CCO): How do we sell it to the Call Center?

Chief Information Officer (CIO): Is IT affected?

Chief Business Officer (CBO): Will it grow the business?

Chief Talent Officer (CTO): Are we training the right people?

Chief Legal Officer (CLO): Are there any liability issues?

Chief Research Officer (CRO): Where did you get your supporting data?

Chief Operations Officer (COO): What's the plan to keep the business running?

Chief Financial Officer (CFO): Do we have the budget for it?

Chief Security Officer  (CSO): How much security clearance does the trainer need?

Chief Executive Officer (CEO): What's the return on investment?

Of course, any of the officers could ask any of those ten questions, and any of them could ask numerous other questions. Why do the Call Center staff need the training? How pressing is this problem? How long has it been a problem? Is a lack of training the root cause of the problem? Are there alternatives to training? How long will the training take? What makes the suggested training organization so expert? Where will the training take place? How will we measure results? Will staff revert to previous behavior? And many more. 

I like this technique because all of us frequently ask and answer questions, so listing the questions and answering them seems as natural as speech. It's a good way to jumpstart the writing process.