In my last post, I mentioned a listserv message that had me incensed.  The gist of it was to ask what other libraries were doing with their Baby Einstein DVDs since the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) released their study that showed that children under two shouldn’t watch videos.

I’m not sure what makes me cringe more—that the person thinks that the AAP actually conducted research on the topic, or that they think such research happened recently.  If you’re thinking of discarding all DVDs aimed at a certain population, maybe you should take a glance at the research, and not just rely on media confusion and listserv subscribers…?!

The AAP hasn’t conducted research

The AAP published their position statement about children’s media in 1999, and it states that children under two shouldn’t watch TV:

“Pediatricians should urge parents to avoid television viewing for children under the age of 2 years.  Although certain television programs may be promoted to this age group, research on early brain development shows that babies and toddlers have a critical need for direct interactions with parents and other significant care givers (eg, child care providers) for healthy brain growth and the development of appropriate social, emotional, and cognitive skills.  Therefore, exposing such young children to television programs should be discouraged.”

AAP Policy Committee on Public Education.  (1999).  Media education.  Pediatrics 104(2), 341-343.

http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/pediatrics;104/2/341

The AAP makes no claim that videos are actually harmful.  What they say is that time spent watching TV takes away from time playing and interacting with people—things that a multitude of research studies have proven to be integral to healthy development.  It’s self-evident.  Time spent doing one thing equals less time available to do something else.  You obviously don’t need to conduct any research to back up that statement.

And yet one might find this abstinence policy a little extreme.  As mentioned in the previous post, parents can make TV time into an interactive experience; but even when it’s used as a momentary diversion, is that really such a bad thing?  Is it imperative that we interact with babies every hour of every day?

Ethical quandary

I’m sure there is research on that topic—whether we should incessantly prattle at babies, or if we should give them downtime.  With all the time, motivation, and database access in the world, I could find an answer for you.  However, even with all of those things, I could not tell you whether videos are actually harmful to babies, because the AAP has precluded such research with their policy statement.  By saying that no child under two should be exposed to television, they render any controlled study on the topic unethical.

Where does that leave scientists who want to research the subject?  Pretty much restricted to parent surveys.  It’s not as though a survey study can’t make its way into a peer-reviewed journal—it happens—but its validity will always be considered somewhat suspect.  Who wouldn’t be tempted to tell a white lie or two to avoid sounding like a horrible parent?  Just me?  Doubt it.

What the CCFC says

The Campaign for a Commercial Free Childhood (CCFC) has a “fact” sheet on their website entitled Baby Scam, which derides the makers of videos for children, particularly Baby Einstein.  My favorite part is the cigarette pack style warning:  “THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS RECOMMENDS NO SCREEN TIME FOR CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF TWO.”  Doesn’t it make you want to panic, like letting your kids watch these videos is on par with handing them a pack of smokes, or maybe a bottle filled with scalding hot coffee or household cleaners?  Or just about anything you read on Really Bad Parenting Advice?

And yet, if you read through it (and especially if you check their citations), you realize that the most mud they can sling is to say that research on the subject is inconclusive.  How frightening.

But…they have footnotes!

Let’s comb through some of the claims the CCFC makes in Baby Scam, shall we?  They definitely zeroed in on the parts that served their purpose.  Me, I’m more of a “What did they conclude?” kind of girl.

Baby Scam says, “Television viewing is negatively associated with regular sleep patterns for babies.”  The study they cite says:

“Our data are cross-sectional, which precludes us from making causal inferences.  However [ . . . ] it is plausible that television viewing leads to disordered sleep in this young population.”  (emphasis mine)

Thompson, D. A. and Christakis, D.  (2005).  The association between television viewing and irregular sleep schedules among children less than 3 years of age.  Pediatrics 116(4), 851-856.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/116/4/851

N.B.  Read page 855 for several other “limitations to this study that deserve comment.”

Baby Scam says, “For babies 8 to 16 months, every hour spent watching baby videos is associated with slower language development—they know six to eight words less on a standardized vocabulary test than babies who don’t watch.”  The study says:

“Further research is required to determine the reasons for an association between early viewing of baby DVDs/videos and poor language development.”

Zimmerman, Frederick J., Christakis, Dimitri A., and Meltzoff, Andrew N.  (2007).  Associations between media viewing and language development in children under age 2 years (abstract).  The Journal of Pediatrics 151(4), 364-368.

http://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(07)00447-7/abstract

I could go on, but I think you’ve got enough data to sense a pattern.  I won’t contend that there are associations between watching videos and [insert bad thing], but we don’t know how many other factors may be contributing to [bad thing].  I guess it’s not necessary to demonstrate that one causes the other before picking up a pitchfork.

Further reading

In 2005, Kaiser Family Foundation published The Effects of Electronic Media on Children Ages Zero to Six: A History of Research, a comprehensive literature review spanning five decades.  Not to spoil the ending, but their “conclusion” about media effects on children under two was that more research is needed—no surprise there.  For an overview of more recent research, see Baby Einstein Controversy: What Parents Need to Know on Paula Slade’s Children’s Entertainment Examiner blog.

Top image credit:  “baby einstein” by Flickr user Kimblah, used under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 license.

Bottom image credit:  “The magic of television” by Flickr user Ian Turk, used under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 license.

I started writing this post in the fall, amidst all the mad drama between the CCFC and Baby Einstein, and all the journalistic and blogging noise that came with it.  I abandoned the post, not caring to add my spit in the ocean of misinformation, but I kept the draft because I happened to love it.  I’m glad I did, because I’m incensed again after reading a painfully inaccurate listserv message yesterday.

I’m long-winded, if you haven’t noticed, so this is going to be segmented.  Today’s post is about applying common sense to the issue.  The follow-up will be about what the research actually says—or doesn’t, as it happens.

I’m not on Baby Einstein’s payroll.  I just happened to find the videos useful when the girls were little.

The imperfect parent

Parenting is challenging.  Parenting infants who don’t nap well and pretty much bawl whenever you aren’t holding them is difficult.  Parenting infants who don’t nap well and pretty much bawl whenever you aren’t holding them, without a strong support system in place, is just plain hard.  But one day you notice that your baby will stare at pretty much anything on a television screen, at least for 20 minutes, which is just long enough to grab a shower.  Hooray!

Now…what would you want to expose your child to while you grab that shower?  Probably not Quentin Tarantino.  Probably not Maury Povich, and (as much as I love it) probably not Days of our Lives, either.  Hey, what about PBS?  That’s purportedly educational, right?  Except Sesame Street is over your baby’s head, and it would be hard to live with yourself if you let them watch Teletubbies.  Cue celestial music and spotlight-from-above as you happen across a Baby Einstein DVD in the store.

Are you picking it up with fantasies of never having to interact with your child again?  Does your near future suddenly involve requesting information packets from Harvard?  No, damn it, you just really want that shower.  If you’re at all deluded, it’s that you think everyone around you is also pulling for you to have that shower.  (Trust me, none of the rest of us even noticed, let alone minded.)

The DVDs

The first thing you notice about the Baby Einstein videos is how formulaic they are.  Set to reorchestrated (“for little ears”) classical music, the early videos are a series of toys parading across the screen, short puppet skits, and scenes of babies and children playing.  These are all punctuated with painfully obvious, excessive use of video wipes, like the page turn wipe.  As any discerning parent can tell after one viewing, it’s not about to turn any child into a genius.  That doesn’t make the videos inherently bad.

After the video is done playing—at least, this is how it was when my girls were young enough to be watching them—there is a little montage, overdubbed with company info and parent testimonials narrated by creator Julie Clark.  She talks about how parents should interact with their children while the videos are playing, connecting the images on the screen with interactive learning experiences.  Baby Einstein never said, “plop your child in front of our product and they will become, like, wicked smart.”  They straight-forwardly said that parent or caregiver needs to be actively involved to make the most of their videos.

Educational value

Children are always learning.  Always, whether or not you want them to.  Like that time you dropped the pickle jar on the kitchen floor and uttered the expletives that came back to bite you at the big family reunion.  As far as I’m concerned, you can slap an educational label on anything.  If you get to call sugary cereal with 10% of the DRV of calcium a “good source” of it, then really any product that offers a smidgen of, say, shape recognition should be able to call itself educational.  “Educational” is such a vague term anyway.  How should we research it?  Standardized tests for toddlers?

Clearly you don’t know how I feel about standardized tests.

My knowledge of child development is far from extensive, but I do know a bit about emergent literacy and language acquisition.  One of the pillars of literacy is vocabulary, and (to break out the librarian propaganda) the easiest and most effective way to increase a baby’s vocabulary is to narrate what you do, and point the things that you see.  You can point things out on a walk or in a grocery store.  You can point things out on the pages of a book.  And, yes, you can even point things out on a TV screen.

Common sense

From birth throughout the preschool years, children learn primarily through play.  We all know this; despite all the conflicting theories of child rearing and education, learning through play is almost universally accepted.  Is a baby going to learn cause and effect or creative problem-solving by watching a toy parade on a video?  I think we can safely say, probably not.

Nonetheless, you shouldn’t worry that this precludes you from taking that shower.  Yes, it’s good to interact with your baby while they watch the video, but you don’t have to do it every time.  You need to take time for yourself, and your baby needs downtime, too.  Judging from my own parenting experience, the amount of stimulation an unmoderated video causes is negligible.  I’d say it qualifies as downtime, in the same way you or I might relax in front of the TV at the end of a long day.

At the very least, plopping your baby in front of Baby Beethoven while you take 20 minutes for yourself isn’t going to cause them any harm.

…Wait, there are seriously organizations that are telling us that these seemingly innocuous videos ARE harmful?!  We’ll see about that.  Stay tuned for the follow-up post, and we’ll sort it out.  And I promise to stop talking about personal hygiene.

No, really, get over the title.  This book is awesome.

Betsy Franco.  Mathematickles!  Illustrated by Steven Salerno.  Margaret K. McElderry Books, 2003.  40 pages.  Age 7 to 10.

You know what’s weird?  The cultural phenomenon of math anxiety.  And the belief that mathematics and the humanities are antithetical.  Hardly so.  Just pick up a popular math book, and you’ll see what I mean.  Anything by Ian Stewart will do nicely.

Or, if you really do have math anxiety, maybe you should start with my new favorite poetry book of all time.  “Of all time” may be an exaggeration, but I’ve fallen for it pretty hard.

Mathematickles! uses arithmetic conventions and comically misused Cartesian coordinate planes to describe the seasons with brevity and precision.  One example is this multiplication table:

Or there’s “Bird Taking Flight,” which graphs the linear equation y = (⅔)x  …OK, maybe that one looks better on a graph.  But how about this one?—

I do think you’ll like it, if you’re human and like seasons and live in the world and have a quirky sense of humor.  You don’t have to be a math person.  Well, maybe I’m not the best judge.  Even more reason to pick up the book and see for yourself!

Poetry Friday is hosted by Irene Latham today.  I bet you dollars to doughnuts that it’s an otherwise math-free zone.

Little Movers is held monthly for 2 to 5 year olds who like to get up and move around.  There are stories, movement activities, songs, and musical instruments.  Sitting still is kept to a minimum.  I’ll post more about the general structure of Little Movers soon.

This is the recipe I used on 02/18/2010.  If you have ideas for books or songs I can add next time, please leave them in the comments!

Books to read:

• All of Me: A Book of Thanks by Molly Bang
• Eyes, Nose, Fingers, and Toes: A First Book All about You by Judy Hindley (text) and Brita Granström (art)
• Here Are My Hands by Bill Martin, Jr. and John Archambault (text), and Ted Rand (art)

Songs to sing:

• “The Hokey Pokey”
• “If You’re Happy and You Know It”

Songs to play:

• “Bellybutton Stays the Same” – Coal Train Railroad, from self-titled
• “Clap Your Hands” – Mary Timony, from Play
• “Everybody Clap Your Hands” – Michael Rachap, from Songeez
• “Fingers and Toes” – Milkshake, from Happy Songs
• “Head, Nose, Belly Button, Toes” – The Blankies, from Action
• “Let’s Shake” – Dan Zanes and Friends, from Catch That Train!
• “Look at My Belly” – Brady Rymer, from Look at My Belly
• “This Is Your Body” – Baze and His Silly Friends, from Toddlerville
• “Your Body’s an Instrument” – Charity and the JAMband, from JAM

What worked:

The kids were a little slow to warm up this month.  I decided to read through the stories at the beginning, because the kids were more inclined to sit than to get up and move around with me (!!).  They got into it when I started playing songs, though, so I threw in a couple more than I had planned.

What didn’t:

I need a new cool-down strategy.  A couple running/screaming kids from last month were back, and they got spastic at flashlight time. ^[1]  It was kind of amusing before, but this time it made the front left quadrant of my head throb.  Glad I have a month to come up with new ideas.  Maybe something more structured.

Also:  Never ask “What should we do next?” if it’s a rhetorical question.  Because the kids will answer you.  Still on that learning curve…

^[1]  “I have a flashlight AND a lightsaber!”  –kid holding two flashlights

[ If you’re not into first ladies, you can skip to the roundup. ]

Sure, it’s President’s Day, but behind all those men stood 46 women—the first ladies. ^[1]  Of all of them, I have two favorites:  Eleanor Roosevelt and Dolley Madison.

I think the first characteristic of a decent illustrated biography about Eleanor Roosevelt should be the fact that it’s not part of the ValueTales series.  I think the existence of those books in my home library growing up can, by itself, explain my love for public libraries.  The series was comprised of horrible revisionist biographies that somehow reasoned that the best way to teach values was to give imaginary friends to prominent historical figures (to say nothing of the late 1970s cartoon illustrations).

Oh, but this is NONFICTION Monday…moving on…

Doreen Rappaport.  Eleanor: Quiet No More.  Illustrated by Gary Kelley.  Hyperion Books, 2009.  48 pages.  Age 6+.

While this book does work its way through Eleanor’s social milestones and political accomplishments, it also looks at her personal transformation, from an arms-length, seen-but-not-heard Victorian upbringing, to the confident, active humanitarian who left her mark on the world.  The prose is concise, but the engaging narrative covers a lot of ground.  Each page is enhanced with poignant quotations.  The illustrations are moving and match the tone of the book throughout.  It’s a great introduction to the life of an amazing woman, accessible to young readers, and nary an imaginary friend within.

Don Brown.  Dolley Madison Saves George Washington  Houghton Mifflin, 2007.  32 pages.  Age 4 to 8.

This book does not discuss Dolley’s early life, except to describe her as a “farm girl.”    Let’s ignore how that belittles her Quaker upbringing, or how she tragically lost her first husband and a son to yellow fever.  Truth is, she’s only famous for marrying that heartbreaker, James Madison.

As a first lady, Dolley became a charming socialite who was known for her dinner parties.  But there was also that one time she facilitated the rescue of a portrait of George Washington from the soon-to-be-burning presidential mansion.  It’s a good story, and worthy of being the central element of this simple biography.

My favorite spread is the book’s treatment of the War of 1812.  On the left we have a finger-pointing George III who says, “You side with our enemies!”  On the right we have Uncle Sam, poised for a fistfight in period dress (excepting an anachronistic I Want You! hat), saying, “You kidnap our sailors!”  Love it.

So, Nonfiction Monday is happening right here today!  Leave your links in the comments, and I’ll post them at intervals throughout the day.  Use this permalink for your incoming links:

http://artofirreverence.com/2010/02/15/nfmon1/

News

Anastasia Suen has created a Nonfiction Monday listserv, and bloggers and authors are invited to join.

Cybils Winner

There is a lot of excitement about the 2009 Cybils winners (announced yesterday!), so there are several posts about the nonfiction picture book winner, The Day Glo Brothers by Chris Barton (text) and Tony Persiani (art):

• Roberta at Wrapped in Foil
• Shirley at SimplyScience Blog
• Jone at Check It Out
• Anastasia at Picture Book of the Day

Arts & Recreation

• At Bookends, Lynn and Cindy review Lights On Broadway: A Theatrical Tour from A to Z by Harriet Ziefert (text) and Elliot Kreloff (art).
• At Wendie’s Wanderings, Wendie reviews The Best of Figure Skating by Kathy Allen.
• BookMoot has a review of What Can You Do with an Old Red Shoe: A Green Activity Book about Reuse by Anna Alter.

Geography/History/Biography

• At Playing by the Book, Zoe reviews As the Crow Flies: A First Book of Maps by Gail Hartman (text) and Harvey Stevenson (art).
• At Charlotte’s Library, Charlotte reviews The Boy Who Harnessed the Wind: Creating Currents of Electricity and Hope by William Kamkwamba and Brian Mealer.
• At Jean Little Library, Jennifer reviews Spies of the Mississippi by Rick Bowers.
• At Abby (the) Librarian, Abby reviews Child of the Civil Rights Movement by Paula Young Shelton (text) and Raul Colon (art).
• At Whispers of Dawn, Sally reviews The Pirate Queen by Emily Arnold McCully.
• At Becky’s Book Reviews, Becky reviews Pick & Shovel Poet: The Journey of Pascal D’Angelo by Jim Murphy.
• At Young Readers, Becky reviews Big George: How A Shy Boy Became President Washington by Anne Rockwell (text) and Matt Phelan (art).
• At A Patchwork of Books, Amanda reviews John Brown: His Fight for Freedom by John Hendrix.
• At Biblio File, Jennie reviews A Life in the Wild: George Schaller’s Struggle to Save the Last Great Beasts by Pamela S. Turner, and The Great and Only Barnum: The Tremendous, Stupendous Life of Showman P. T. Barnum by Candace Fleming.
• At Lost between the Pages, Anna reviews Muckrakers by Anne Bausum.

Science

• At In Need of Chocolate, Sarah reviews Dino Dung: The Scoop on Fossil Feces by Dr. Karen Chin & Thom Holmes (text), and Karen Carr (art).
• At proseandkahn, Brenda reviews Charles Darwin and the Beagle Adventure by A.J. Wood and Clint Twist.
• At SimplyScience Blog, Shirley reviews Toco Toucans: Bright Enough to Disappear by Anastasia Suen.
• At Wild about Nature, Kim reviews Adopted by an Owl: The True Story of Jackson the Owl by Robbyn Smith van Frankenhuyzen (text) and Gijsbert van Frankenhuysen (art).
• At The Cat and the Fiddle, Michelle discusses the ending of All Pigs Are Beautiful by Dick King-Smith.
• At Raising Readers and Writers, Julie reviews The Edible Pyramid: Good Eating Every Day by Loreen Leedy.

^[1] For the tally, we are counting Buchanan’s niece, Harriet Lane.  If When we get to transition to the term “first spouses,” we’ll see where that leaves Harriet.

Sometimes, things look a lot different in the distance than they do on your front lawn.  I’ve always considered blogger-to-blogger awards to be trivial and chain-lettery.  (You MUST give this to 17 people or your firstborn will be mauled by a bear!!!)  But, upon receiving one such award the other day, I got really excited.

The award I received was the Lemonade Stand Award from Zoe at Playing by the Book.  Why am I so excited?  First of all, I didn’t even know she read my blog, so I’m exceedingly happy about that.  Second, I’ve found myself in really good company among the other blogs she issued the award to, and it’s given me a chance to read some really cool stuff.

Now, being a children’s librarian is typically a whole other ballgame from working reference, but I played an adult reference librarian for several years, and I love doing research.  In that spirit, I decided to figure out the origin of the Lemonade Stand Award.  Seeing as every ten seconds someone forwards it on to ten people, it was no small feat…but I have a hypothesis, based on these events:

• October 20, 2008 – The Lemon-Aid Stand presented a “Gratitude with Attitude Award” to MS Maze (and others), accompanied by the image on the right.
• October 20, 2008 – MS Maze presented the award, under the same name, to Chronic Chick Talk (and others); due to technical difficulties, she was unable to upload the image.
• November 9, 2008 – Chronic Chick Talk presented the “Lemonade Award” to others, displaying the same rules and conditions as the Gratitude with Attitude Award, along with as the above image.  She also thanked MS Maze for the award and apologized for the time lag.
• Thereafter – The Lemonade Stand Award spreads like the best of memes.

What do you think?  Did I nail it?  I suppose I could contact Chronic Chick Talk and ask her to confirm or deny, but where’s the fun in fact-checking?!  And by “Where’s the fun?” I mean I’d be really disappointed if my hypothesis were disproven. ^[1]  Also, I don’t want to bother anyone, least of all someone who is chronically ill, with my inane questions.

Back on point, I must admit that I’m not properly accepting this award, because I’m not spreading the love to others.  But I do want to properly give thanks to Zoe, which I guess is what this long, digressive post is supposed to be accomplishing.  Reader, I’d be thrilled if you went and explored Playing by the Book.  I think you’ll like it there.

^[1] And that’s why I’m not a scientist!  But I do love science, regardless.

Snow, where are you?  You seem to be traveling a long way from home this year, en masse.  Are you not getting enough affection from northern New England?  Have you decided to try your luck elsewhere?

Okay, so I’m guilty of kvetching whenever you start to fall, but it’s not really not you that I hate.  It’s the bitter cold and—worst of all—the piercing wind.  I really shouldn’t be judging you by your friends, though, because when you’re by yourself I usually enjoy your company.  Especially when my car is tucked away in the garage.

I’m sorry, snow.  Let me make it up to you by talking about a couple books starring you.

Mark Cassino and John Nelson, PhD.  The Story of Snow: The Science of Winter’s Wonder.  Chronicle Books, 2009.  32 pages.  Age 4 to 8.

Snow crystals, the building blocks of snowflakes, are absolutely beautiful, as the magnified photographs in The Story of Snow show.  Regardless of how you feel toward winter weather, this book will give you a little more respect for it.  The text is simple, with one prominent nutshell sentence for each spread, and supplemental information in smaller fonts.  You could have a cohesive book by just reading the large-font sentences, if you wanted to adapt the book for a young child, but all of the information in the book is rather interesting.  There are no wasted words.

Melissa Stewart.  Under the Snow.  Illustrated by Constance R. Bergum.  Peachtree, 2009.  32 pages.  Age 4 to 8.

Under the Snow is a quiet, enjoyable exploration of how different animals survive the winter.  Some hide.  Some huddle.  Some slow down.  Some nap.  Some sleep straight through.  And then there’s the wood frog, who doesn’t hide too deep because he can freeze solid and still thaw out okay in spring.

It’s an interesting assortment of facts.  Many are general (frog, turtle), but others are quite specific, including the red-spotted newt, which, as it happens, doesn’t even slow down.  The illustrations are soft and subdued, and broken into panels to give things a little visual interest. I don’t know about you, but if I were going to sleep through the winter, soft and subdued would sound just about right.

Previously » Part 1 » The ratio of music to audiobooks in ALSC Notable Recordings lists, and how youth librarians seem to gravitate toward book-based media. (read it)

If you’ve browsed my blog for at least ten seconds, you know how much I love, love, love kids’ music.  I get excited when I hear a great album or see a great show, and I think everyone should know about these things.  I’ve only been clued in to the field of family music since 2007—I vaguely remember the day when I had my there-must-be-something-better-out-there epiphany, and the ridiculous Google searches ^[1] that got me on my way—and I would love to facilitate that sort of discovery for others.  It was a major contributing factor when I started this blog:  subjecting my unsuspecting readers to the wonderful world of kids’ music.

By unsuspecting, I mean my original goal was for this to be a kidlit blog, with some music reviews thrown in for good measure.  Long story short, I don’t really fit into the book blogging culture.  I still blog about books—I have to, it’s compulsive—but writing about music is just as important to me now, and it’s the one area where I’ve received some marginal recognition.

So, my driving force is to let anyone and everyone know about the best in family music, but I’m realizing now that I also need to consider addressing other librarians.  So, the question becomes, how do I infiltrate my own profession?

Er, what I mean is, most children’s librarians have better things to do than sit around reading my blog.  Where and how will I reach my peers, and what’s the road to credibility?  Do I start with professional reviews? ^[2]  Presentations?  Research and publication?

I have over 31 years (that’s not a cringe, it’s a smile, really!) until I retire if I stick with my day job.  Maybe I’ll get to serve on the NCR committee at some point.  Of course, that means I’ll have to model the open-mindedness I hope others will have toward music by forging a love for audiobooks.  Stranger things have happened.

Audiobooks should seriously come with falsetto alerts.

Image credit:  “Music” by Flickr user Maciej Lewandowski, used under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 license.

^[1] Search engines like to deny it, but natural language counts for something.

^[2] What?  I can be professional!

In the interest of disclosure, I should preface this post by saying that I had a bad experience with an audiobook once.  (It pulled a knife on me in a dark alley…)  No, it was the fact that the narrator felt the need to read the female characters’ lines in falsetto.  This is probably undue punishment on an entire industry, but I’ve haven’t tried to listen to an audiobook since.

I mention this because I’ve been thinking a bit about the Association for Library Service to Children (ALSC) list of 2010 Notable Children’s [Sound] Recordings, which came out last month.  Of the thirty titles, only four are music CDs.  Two are Putumayo Kids releases, one is Recess Monkey’s Field Trip, and the other one is some Jewish lullaby album.  It’s a pretty typical ratio for music and audiobooks, and Field Trip is probably the most progressive “notable” to date, so maybe I should be applauding the committee for this step in the right direction.  But I’m not.

I’m not much for lullabies, but I like Putumayo Kids as much as the next guy, and I like Recess Monkey at least as much as the next guy.  But…these inclusions seem a little limited in scope.  I’m not suggesting that the NSR committee search high and low for every independently-released album each year, but I am convinced that they are suffering from one of two problems:  either the committee is largely unaware of this burgeoning genre of music, or they aren’t giving it enough credit.  I suppose, less cynically, I could also leave room for the possibility that neither statement is true, and instead it’s a case of disagreement among committee members.  It’s possible.

I’m sure it’s not appropriate to do so, but in my mind I’m extrapolating these committee decisions, year after year, as a reflection of the profession in general.  I mean, we’re librarians.  We like books.  It’s been the same story with videos—for years, about half of the Notable Children’s Videos titles are from Weston Woods. ^[1]  Theatrical releases aren’t eligible, but (as far as I can tell by the manual), anything else is fair game.  Weston Woods videos are all well and good, but after so many years of putting them on these lists, it’s hard to believe that they are still so “important, distinguished, and outstanding.”

I’m just speculating about the videos—I didn’t spend countless hours reviewing them, and I probably haven’t actually seen any of the ones on this year’s list.  But I do know a fair amount about kids’ music releases from last year, so I guess I should get back on topic.

Next up » Part 2 » Why not listening to audiobooks may hurt me in the long run, and what any of this has to do with why I blog! (read it)

^[1] For the uninitiated, Weston Woods makes short films out of picture books.  The animation is minimal, and very true to the original; the words are on the screen, just like they would be in the book; and the narration…well…the narrator typically has good diction, anyway.

Various artists.  We’re Not Kidding: A Tribute to Barry Louis Polisar.  Snail Sounds / Rainbow Morning Music.  2009.

I never could have guessed that I’d own an album by or featuring the Radioactive Chicken Heads.  It’s easy to be dismissive of a gimmicky band…I mean, you have to wonder how crappy their music must be if they think they have to look like this.  And yet, not only have they put together a tribute album bursting with talent and variety, but they’re also responsible for my favorite song on the album.

That song is “I Wanna Be a Dog.”  Now, that title should immediately call to mind the Stooges.  (If it didn’t, then you have required listening homework this week.)  Set that aside for a second, and take a look at this song’s lyrics:

I wanna be a dog, wanna wag my tail,
Chase cars and knock over garbage cans,
Bite the man who brings the mail.

Read the rest of the lyrics here.  Next, listen to how the song originally sounded.  Finally, call the Stooges back to mind, and fuse “I Wanna be a Dog” with “I Wanna be Your Dog.”

It happened on this album, successfully.

. . .

…I’m kind of surprised you’re still reading this.  If it were me, I would have opened a new browser tab to buy the album.  Or at least the song.  But you’re probably going to want the whole album.  Here are just a few reasons:

• “Don’t Stick Your Finger Up Your Nose” in Yiddish
• “Never Cook Your Sister in a Frying Pan” with a gospel ending
• A rap version of “When Suzie Sneezed”

Not to mention the other 56 tracks on the 2-disc set.  It’s a very hodgepodge album, but the tracks manage to fit cohesively, and it’s high quality throughout.  You can read all about the artists and their contributions, and hear more samples, on Polisar’s website.

other reviews:
Children’s Entertainment Examiner | Servings from the Cereal Bowl

Standard disclosure:  The CD was provided by BLP for review.  He has neither paid nor pressured me to speak well of it.