I don’t like to get personal here. Even writing a first-person sentence felt off. But now felt like a good time for this note. So please feel free to close this window if it’s not interesting; believe me, I get it.
It’s safe to call the topics on this blog “obscure.” My web analytics certainly point to that label. That’s not a passive-aggressive attempt to curry support. It’s a fact.
Nathan Glantz will probably never rake in clicks like Louis Armstrong, who will, in turn, never earn the online numbers of Michael Jackson—who might now be losing to Taylor Swift in terms of internet metrics, and even she probably yearns for the president’s numbers. He’s not a musician, but if we’re just focused on stats, that seems beside the point.
On the other hand, when it comes to obscurity, and Glantz, two videos come to mind: first, a video of his music and a great example of why I enjoy it:
Maybe this recording does and means nothing to you. Still, it’s one of hundreds of videos on YouTube featuring Glantz’s records, and one of the many with a clean transfer of his music—that someone took the time to engineer and upload—with information and comments, meaning people took the time to research and then discuss what they heard. The video has nearly 600 views. Compared to web traffic around Swift or POTUS, that’s not even the shells of peanuts. But if our measure of obscurity was the latest hit single or most recent political attack, what else would count as obscure?
Let’s assume 1% of those viewers actually heard the whole side and thought, “not bad!” That means six people, potentially worldwide, enjoyed the same record, made over a century ago, that lasts barely three minutes and was likely never intended for posterity. Compared to traffic around my desk, it’s remarkable.
That brings me to the other video on my mind this morning, an interview with film writer Glenn Gers, discussing “insignificant” work:
The writing on this website is not art; it’s a discussion of what one person finds interesting about music they enjoy. And readers may not agree with any of Gers’s points.
But then there’s his point about the “success” of having 36 people subscribed to a YouTube channel. He uses that term without irony or understatement. To really dumb down his point, it’s a big world, and the passage of time often wears away renown, so attracting an audience, period, even if it doesn’t fill a stadium—even if it doesn’t fill a conference room—is success, and success in this big world during your short lifetime is amazing.
This website has more than 36 readers! It certainly doesn’t have anywhere near 600. But, according to my dashboard, double digits of people take time out to read it, including many I’ve never met, will never meet, and who may not be in the same time zone or (apparently) hemisphere as me. Imagine that many people in a room together talking about Nathan Glantz? I imagine them in my room, and I am grateful.
I, me, Andrew, always appreciate the people who read, comment, share, and otherwise take time out for the information and ideas on my website. Thank you. You remind me that “obscure” is a matter of scale, and scale is just which system of measurement we use.
Also, thanks for reading this far. Next time, back to the music and much less “I.”
The Pop of Yestercentury 