Matt Metzgar

What Happened to Jazz?

For some time, I have believed that the number of great jazz musicians is declining.  Assuming this to be true, I have been curious as to the cause.  Of course, there have been good jazz musicians of late, even excellent ones, but have there been any giants?  In the last twenty five years, about the only true jazz great I have heard mention of is Winton Marsalis.  In the years before him, there was a plethora: Louis Armstrong, John Coltrane, Art Monk, Dizzy Gillespie, the list goes on and on.

In my opinion, Charlie Parker is the best jazz musician of all-time.  Ushering in the bebop era, Parker blitzed the competition and took the art to unprecedented heights.  Flaming out at age 34, his impact is still felt today. 

So where have all the jazz geniuses gone of late?  One idea is that gifted, musical youths are turning to other genres.  The popularity of jazz has declined, while r & b/rap music has become dominant.  It might be simply that artists interested in african-amercian music now choose rap and r & b, whereas fifty years ago they would have chosen jazz.

If this is true, and the movement away from jazz is just due to changes in cultural tastes, I'm not sure society is better off for it.  Many of the current r & b/rap artists are a dime a dozen - over time their music will be forgotten.  To think of it another way, people today are still listening to classical music that was written centuries ago.  I believe the music of jazz giants like Charlie Parker will also stand the test of time.  But as for the current crop of r & b/rap artists, I'm skeptical -  history may judge this period very harshly.

The Quick Fix

Quick fixes for weight loss are everpresent in our economy.  It should be noted, of course, that if any of these things really worked, we wouldn't have 2/3 of our populaton being overweight.  I read a good line somewhere after the Atkins craze started dying down: "If Atkins really worked, there would be a bunch of skinny people walking around the mall."

The human body represents millions of years of evolution; built in are a variety of physiological measures to make sure it survives.  Unfortunately, trying to lose weight goes against the grain of some of these mechanisms. 

When someone engages in long-term calorie restriction (a diet), the body - imagining a declining food supply - will slow its metabolic rate.  Over time, the body works to readjust its fat stores close to the original levels.  This process takes longer than people think.  For example, let's say a person goes on a diet for three months and loses some weight.  Over the next nine months or longer, the body will slow its metabolism and the person will slowly gain weight.  After a year, very little weight has been lost.

This is why researchers shouldn't even bother studying short-term diets.  Low-carb diets, low-fat diets, high-protein diets - they will all show some weight loss over a couple of months, yet none will show signficant weight loss over the course of a year.  This recent study demonstrates this fact: no matter which diet people were on, the weight loss after a year was the same - about 5 pounds.

Exercise is the number one factor in detemining your weight.  However, most people underestimate how much exercise is necessary to lose weight.  In the next few days, I will post about what research studies have shown in regards to the level of exercise needed for weight loss.

Working

The problem with modern work was summarized nicely a few years back in Studs Terkel's book, "Working."  The book consisted of interviews from a variety of workers, most lamenting that they did not find expected satisfaction in their employment.

I thought one interviewee summed it up well by saying, "Jobs aren't big enough for people."  Many modern jobs grate against our inherent need for contribution.  Too often workers are distanced from the end product, or in some cases the end product isn't much of a contribution anyways.  It's just not enough to push papers around and make a buck - people feel the need to make a difference.

In some ways, I feel society is misleading its youth.  They get the standard pitchline: go to college, get a job, live happily ever after.  The focus is usually on well-paying professions, which, while very reasonable, doesn't generate much "spiritual income".  Many people utilize their leisure time to make a difference, but wouldn't it be nice if their full-time jobs served this function?

Jobs have certainly progressed in terms of comfort, moving from manual labor and factory jobs to modern office jobs.  But breaking bricks or pushing papers are still similar - neither is very meaningful for people.  And physically, the first one wears your body out, while the second one lets your body fall into neglect from disuse. 

I'm not sure how this problem can be solved - the division of labor has flourished under capitalism and is the main engine behind our increasing standard of living.  I would be hesistant to have government intervene into such a gray area.  But it's always nice to dream of a world where the jobs are big enough for the people.

All Hail Agassi

At 35 years old and two sets down to American James Blake, Andre Agassi pulled out an amazing five-set victory in the US Open quarterfinals tonight.  The match went down to the wire, with a fifth set tiebreaker deciding the winner. 

You have to admire Agassi's transformation through the years.  Always somewhat overshadowed by Pete Sampras's prodigious talent, Agassi started as the kid with the wild hair whose great tennis play would come and go.  I remember in the early 90s Agassi would tank a game or set if he felt he was too far behind.  At some point though, he seemed to make up his mind: he would play every point to the best of his ability and if someone beat him, so be it.

Sampras did beat him a few more times, but then Agassi started to add more major titles to his collection.  Now at 35 years of age, his attitude seems to be the same: beat me if you can.  Tonight, James Blake couldn't, and Agassi continues on to the semifinals. 

Winner-Take-All Markets

I have been thinking much more about Robert Frank's book, "The Winner-Take-All Society."  I read it a number of years ago, and I am surprised there has not been much more written about the subject.  The basic premise is this: there are few winners at the top, and they are receiving a disportionate share of the the wealth, even though the difference between the winners and the losers is very slim.

Here's a basketball example: the top 300 or so players in the world make millions in the NBA.  The next 500 or so players make much less, less than $100k in development or minor leagues.  The players beyond the top 1,000 make zilch.  So let's say you are "ranked" the 1,001 best basketball player in the world.  You can shoot, pass, and run rings around 99% of the population.  But your financial reward for this ability is zero.  If the rewards were at all symmetrical, you could get some compensation for your skills, but the system is tilted towards the top.

The same type of market structure holds true for other flashy occupations, such as actors and musicians.  The best get all the rewards and recognition - the rest get very little.  With the increase in globalization and the internet, the competition will continue to get even more fierce.

But it wasn't always this way, and actually our minds were not developed for this.  Our hunter-gatherer ancestors lived in small tribes, and everyone played a role.  With a small number of competitiors, everyone had the chance to be the best at something.  If you were the best musician in the tribe, you had a role and your value was apparent.  It didn't matter if you were the best musician in the world or not; the "world" was the small tribe you lived with.

This logic would suggest that schools should become smaller, allowing each student to shine in something.  With a school of 3000 students, only 12 or so can make the basketball team.  Break that into three schools of 1000, and now another 24 students have a chance to excel and gain recogntion.

Some would argue that larger schools and more competition is good, that this will push students to excel even more.  My feeling is that all students will eventually have to compete with the millions of other citizens in the US, and billions of other citizens in the world.  Eventually, they will see how they stack up.  In the meantime, they should be given opportunities to gain and build confidence.

A funny quote that sums this up is one I heard from Jay Leno a few years ago.  He was talking about how China had just reached 1 billion in total population.  His response: "In China, if you're a one-in-a-million guy, there's now one million of you."

Is Education the Answer?

While the destruction in New Orleans has brought out the best in those who are trying to give or help, it has also spotlighted some characters who represent the worst in society.  Looters, murderers, etc. remain in New Orleans, either because they are too scared to leave or oblivious to the complete damage.

The national media has focused on this, with Fox news in general casting stones.  Many will cry out that education is the answer, that we need to provide better education for our youth in troubled areas.  While commendable, I do not believe that education is the correct prescription in this case.

Should high-achieving low-income students be given financial assistance to go to college?  Sure, I don't see how many would argue against that.  But handing out college scholarships to everyone in trouble won't cure society's ills.

The movie "Coach Carter" dramatizes this point: you can't take a student who doesn't care about learning, who doesn't take any responsibility for their lives, and just give them a college scholarship to fix their problems.  They are still the same person, and the dream of college fostered onto them by society will most likely fade away.

The real life Coach Carter is heroic not because he is a great basketball coach, but because he basically takes on the role of a parent for troubled youths.  What these students really need is guidance and structure (proper parenting), not necessarily a college scholarship.  If they get their fundamentals in place, then maybe a college education will be useful or desirous to them; without the fundamentals, it doesn't really matter.

Should teachers play the role of parents for some?  That may seem insulting to those who parent well, or unethical to others.  But if education is "the answer" then this must be allowed.  Otherwise, things will continue along their same path, whether there are more scholarships available or not.

Personally, I don't think this is the solution.  I believe the answer has to include higher standards of responsibility for parents.  Children aren't their parents, and they need to take some degree of responsibility for their choices.  But parents who are negligent or lazy are just pawning off their responsibility of raising a child on others.  In these situations, either the parents should be helped or they should be disciplined themselves.    In either case, it is an attempt to treat the root of the problem rather than a way to disguise the symptoms.

Hooray for Hollywood

With the long weekend, my wife and I decided to take a trip to Hollywood.  Beverly Hills is just as beautiful as ever.  We made the most of our time there, going to Rodeo Drive, Farmer's Market, and Universal Citywalk. 

Of course, we spent time on Sunset Boulevard, even stopping at the Viper Club (where River Phoenix overdosed).  The weekend would not have been complete without paying some wildly high prices for average drinks.  But that's a small pittance to pay when hanging out in such a wonderful location.  If I ever acquire a few million, this blog will be coming to you from Beverly Hills.

Brief Fasting Can Be Good

Art DeVany has a great website - one that also views nutrition and exercise from a Stone Age perspective.  One of his recent posts dealt with the subject of intermittent fasting, that is, fasting for brief periods.  Long-term fasting does not, I believe, have very many beneficial effects.  It is equivalent to starvation from the body's point of view.

However, our Stone Age ancestors must have "struck out" and not been able to acquire food on a somewhat regular basis.  I have always had this suspicion, but until recently there was no research to support this view.  On the contrary, many researchers have believed that more frequent eating, up to six meals a day, was the way to go.

Fortunately, a number of new studies have come out that show the benefits of intermittent fasting.  The benefits include decreased insulin levels and improved fat oxidation.  The studies ranged from a shorter period of fasting (skipping breakfast and lunch) to alternate-day complete fasting.

I tried the shorter fast period for one day last week.  I have to admit I was nervous; I don't think I've missed both breakfast and lunch in years, and I was afraid I might pass out or what not.  Yet the experiment went quite well.  I was hungry, as to be expected, but nothing unmanageable.  I certainly enjoyed my dinner more than usual. 

I will continue with some short fasts periodically, and see what happens.

Unique Endurance Training

As will be discussed more on this site, evidence continues to mount that anaerobic training (short sprint-type training) is effective for both anaerobic AND aerobic fitness.  One example comes from the latest update on Clarence Bass' website (one of my favorites).

The success story documents how a 32-year-old male trained for a 5k race with no endurance training.  Instead, he used the "Tabata" protocol, which involves 20 second sprints with 10 seconds rest in between.  Amazingly, this person ran a better 5k time than he did the previous year when he did traditional aerobic training.