Brain Canvas

The predominant trend since the Second Industrial Revolution has been for the young to move to cities, where there is more opportunity and infrastructure; primarily for employment but also for culture and social opportunity. The villages and small towns of the hinterland are left without a strong talent base and slip into a perilous decline on account of brain drain.

If the Internet and its applications are able to attract a large suite of industries that require workers to have no particular place to do their job so long as they have high bandwidth, people could voluntarily move out to the country without fear of losing other opportunities. They could even create a sort of new wave of “intentional communities” where people of different backgrounds and skill sets move to certain towns.  Perhaps they migrate because of the weather, recreational opportunities, cultural heritage, or just because they like the name of the town – but always because that town has high bandwidth. These social migrants could formulate a new culture in each community, halting or even reversing the dominant trend of cultural hegemony.

Small cities and rural villages which aggressively pursue bandwidth resources, possibly through municipal broadband initiatives, would completely transform their economic and cultural prospects.  Decayed failed industrial towns which gain a critical amount of bandwidth, and are lucky enough to be chosen by a particular social migrant community as their home, could see a boom like that which towns located along the Interstate experienced two generations ago.  Towns that are not on best natural harbor in the world or that lack a massive airport can leverage other benefits they have.  Some of them may have a large number of attractive prewar homes.  They may be picturesquely located along a difficult-to-reach mountain ridge or beach, or be situated next to a sleepy river.  Some small college towns already have the keys to economic and cultural success that could be amplified by a massive injection of bandwidth and smart promotion.

“Nice town, but I couldn’t be a (name it) here.  There aren’t enough jobs.” Or, “I love these open spaces.  If only my company’s office could be out here!”  These sad words should deliver no more nightmares to local chambers of commerce.  The wireless worker is not a new phenomenon, but it still takes a certain industry or certain kind of worker to become a digital nomad.  Only huge cities, which are also Internet hubs, have enough bandwidth to be both reliable and affordable to enable telecommuting for the masses.  Not until a critical mass of companies can meet and work nearly 100% virtually will intentional social migration become a possibility.  The United States is notably behind other developed nations in both broadband speed and deployment.  The economic backcountry should take the lead in gaining broadband services and a whole new cultural phenomenon could become easily attainable for most Americans.  Furthermore, this idea of social migration enabled by high bandwidth would not just be limited to the US: any country with high bandwidth and an interested populace could see a new migratory wave – away from the cities.

Intentional social migrants, fueled by a hunger for bandwidth, could revitalize the cultural and economic outlook of the developed world.

A dark cloud has rolled over the cultural landscape with the merger of Ticketmaster and Live Nation into one massive lord of the overpriced ticketing realm.  Ticketmaster is already infamous for its hefty “convenience fees,” but its clout is such that even when bands like Pearl Jam have tried to take a stand, they always have to come crawling back, because there just was not enough room for them to negotiate.  The merger with their only remotely similar competitor, however, brings the price-gouging juggernaut too far.

I am a fan of tunes, and even more of a fan of seeing live music.  I also believe that the apex of artistry comes from live performance, and that musicians ought to make their real earthly treasure from performance, not selling canned music.  This merger unfortunately backs performing artists into a corner: if they grow successful enough to play larger venues, they almost certainly will run into the LiveTicketNationMaster cartel.

Those musicians who make their fame and living by touring hard and letting fans tape their shows to trade freely ought to join together in the name of music as a form of cultural expression and do something about this.  What if a critical mass of performing artists said “no way” to performing in venues paying tribute to the ticket giant?  I read an interview with virtuoso guitarist Derek Trucks some years back in which he predicted this exact same problem arising, and said something like “but if we have to play in people’s back yards to keep live music going, then that is exactly what we’ll do.”  Unfortunately Derek has not yet taken a stand on that claim.

This must happen.  Content and media conglomerates have already fenced off whole cultural pastimes that used to be a free, shared part of the human experience.  If those artists who truly drive musical innovation and command a large and dedicated fanbase took a stand in partnership with smaller community venues, we could see a serious alternative arise to Ticketmaster.  It could start with actual people with (big) backyards hosting bands for concerts with minimal overhead, while bands refuse to play at “compromised” TicketNation venues.  While that movement takes off, community venues can negotiate together to offer attractive, low-cost packages to sidestep Ticketmaster-LiveNation and provide a space for a new community that celebrates the best part of the old music culture: affordable concerts, good places for artists and fans to develop something together, and ultimately a higher proliferation of musical acts that are able to draw a higher number of fans.

Music makers of the world unite!

Given the holiday we in the US celebrate today and the recent tragedy in the Caribbean, I have been torn all weekend whether to write something here today about Martin Luther King, Jr. or Haiti. I’ve decided to forgo the latter until next time, in large part things ot this quotation from King himself which will serve nicely as a springboard into my “What If…” query for this week.

From King’s “I have been to the mountaintop” speech. Towards the end of his speech he referenced recent threats against his life saying:

“Well, I don’t know what will happen now. We’ve got some difficult days ahead. But it doesn’t matter with me now. Because I’ve been to the mountaintop. And I don’t mind. Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I’m not concerned about that now. I just want to do God’s will. And He’s allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I’ve looked over. And I’ve seen the promised land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land. So I’m happy, tonight. I’m not worried about anything. I’m not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.”

He gave this speech on April 3, 1968. The day before he was assassinated.

What is interesting to consider about King, and something I think most people today don’t realize, is just how subversive of a figure he truly was. Being now immortalized in a federally sanctioned national holiday, and his life story memorized by children of all colors (at least in America), its easy to forget that he was in life such a socially and politically subversive figure.

What is interesting to consider is if such subversive characters still have the ability to make such a huge positive impact on society in today’s world. Somewhat surprisingly (to myself at any rate), I believe the clear and honest answer to this question to be no.

If I think about the people over the last 20 years (about a generation) who have changed the world in some way, most of the people who come to my mind are not people who did it by challenging the status quo outside of the system, but rather people who worked within the system to achieve their ends.

Perhaps the perfect foil to the example of King is President Obama. I’m not arguing that they have made equal impacts on the world (although both have won Nobel Peace Prizes), but at the very least both have risen to impeccable heights. The important point here is that they have taken drastically different paths to do so.

Now for me, the interesting question is, of course, why is this the case? I think its easy, and also probably true to an extent, to point to the society we live in today to be the primary cause of this. Through political change, technological innovation and economic development, more people in the world have access to the opportunities one needs to influence the issues we face than ever before. A greater number of people have been able to join the conversation.

Another important thing to consider is whether a subversive approach would be adequate to tackle the problems our world faces today. Protests in Copenhagen at the COP 15 summit probably did very little to bring about its extremely underwhelming conclusion. The problems our world faces today, whether they be climate change, education or terrorism are more complex and may require the resources that one can leverage “inside” the system to be adequately tackled.

The heroes and revolutionaries from our time will be the entrepreneurs, politicians and scientists who worked within the system to start the enterprises, build the coalitions and invent the technologies that saved the world.

I am tired of 90% of my experiences of “going out” to “the bar” (and I HATE how everyone calls multiple establishments “the bar” as if there is one, unbroken mythical bar asserted in varied aspects and avatars through different locations) involving being too cramped, surrounded by people who are too drunk and all look the same, and drowned out by head-against-a-car-door beating and repetitive music.  The reader may call me a damned antisocial fiend for saying that, since so many people apparently either like or say they like those things about going out.

Some bars I have been to have pleased me greatly though.  I recall The Echo Tap in Madison, Wisconsin, for its down-played decor, personable tenders, and non-pounding ambiance which allows for plenty of conversation – in that case, high-stakes political wheeling and dealing was undertaken without the need to shout, or any key words garbled in the three feet between my mouth and my blog-colleague’s.  A more recent outing imprinted in memory was in Philadelphia at National Mechanics, which I will confess so impressed me that is is sort of an inspiration for the following.

A great public house should not be like a cattle car with alcohol instead of feeding tubes.  Even if the cattle car is swank, dive, themed, local or a veritable meat market, it is still full of too many mammals making the same sounds.  More than ample space is needed to free the customer from claustrophobia.  It could mean high ceilings, a long hallway, or big windows.  The bar itself should be fairly long with good amenities like a round wrist-wrest (much appreciated), a lip at the edge to prevent spillage from having any consequences on your clothes, hooks at knee level for bags and purses, and a footrest at the least.  The barstools should be ergonomically constructed to lend themselves to being sat in for a long time with minimal discomfort.  A large main room is a good idea, with plenty of tables and a space at the front for a performance or speech if required, but the tables should remain on the floor unless there is a special event.  I would like to sit at a bar and talk, not bounce around on my feet, generally.

Off from the main room there should be side rooms and stalls, which can either be occupied on a first-come first-serve basis or can be reserved prior.  They should vary in the amount of space offered, from four people in a small stall to up to about twenty people in a larger room, for discussions and meetings of all sort to be permitted to take place.  The bathroom amenities should be designed so that, no matter what, long lines are not the norm – and keep the bathrooms clean!

Primarily the public house is a space for people to come together.  It should be like a town hall, except you can drink and swear.  You should be able to do those things at a town hall as well, but failing that, let it be the public house.  The wall decoration should be the product of local artisans, or maybe collections from patrons’ travels.  The music if at all possible should be live and played on real instruments, or spun by a real DJ – but should only be loud when it really needs to be loud.  As for the smell, if the publican can take care to not let any part of the bar smell like Jaegerbomb vomit, then they will probably do a good job with the upkeep of the rest of the olfactory ambiance.

Food is key during the day, and some of it at night as well.  The food should not just be common “bar food.”  The establishment should take pride in its menu and not dip everything into the fryer.  Like in Spain, free small snacks should come with every drink someone orders.  Coffee should be available all the time, right up to last call.

When I decide to go to a bar, whether at noon or at eleven in the evening, I should expect that I will either see someone there I have met before, or that I will have no trouble meeting someone new, almost without great effort.  Connections should be made constantly, and ideas and stories should be exchanged.  Going with friends, I should expect to be able to have a conversation without screaming in each other’s ear and not have the conversation be limited to how expensive the beer is or how there is no room.  The bar should be a place to talk about cool things, and not just things that some people find cool – the people who want to go to bars all the time.  Businesses should be started from conversations at bars every week.  Political ideas should be hatched.  New romances should be made – not just one-night stands.  Societies should be able to meet in the rooms and meeting-spaces regularly and then get half off drinks for the rest of the night when their meeting is done.  The bar should promote these societies.

The bar should also decide to stand for something in the community, beyond just being there for the community to meet and drink.  A political focus? A business focus? A spiritual focus?  A particular activity, like a sport or a hobby or music?   By encouraging people to become active in the community that establishes itself in its space, the bar welcomes these patrons to become participants and shapers of the experience there.  They become stakeholders instead of customers.  Then things can really happen, and these movements and communities become known to many more people than if they had to meet in someone’s residence or another private space.

In the end though, I just want a place where I can enjoy one or many drinks and have a few conversations.