...thoughts on music and culture. For a better reading experience, click on the Title link of a post. 

Join our mailing list for the latest news

Fascism is Real (Essay #2): The Demonization of Media 

Fake news leads to fake issues. The Trump administration’s relentless attempts to delegitimize the “mainstream” media add more evidence to a larger picture of onerous and corrupt governance. Unfortunately for Trump, there is such a thing as legitimate media: that which doesn’t base an operating plan on the crass dissipation of propaganda. Trump’s rhetoric is the stuff of the lowest common denominator. Tearing down the main stream works in his favor. Calling the NY Times totally corrupt is an attempt to elevate the relevance of his moronic tweets. Those echoing Trump’s hostility towards the media tend be people who are the least affected by the fear-based narrative being put forth, the working class in the Rust Belt, middle class and executive class white Americans firmly entrenched in their chain store suburban lives.  For these people, the reality of a terrorist attack is the equivalent to being besieged by Boogie Men who would like nothing more than to steal their vitals. 
  
Trump and his minions have chosen to harness their worldview through a keyhole. President Trump asks the country to view global politics as a black and white paradigm, which is a strange and perverse oversimplification. The world is complex and for all of Trump’s wealthy pedigree and worldly experience, he should know better. But his political agenda on the national scale is thus far limited to a series of restless and paranoid hack moves such as asking people to consider alternative facts and warring with the press. Trump’s take on international affairs is a real “this-is-your-brain-on-drugs” moment. For example, while those firmly connected to reality know that Mexico is not going to pay for that wall, many of Trump’s most ardent supporters passionately argue that Mexico will pay for the wall because Trump said so. Given this lack of actual diplomatic skill, it makes sense that he would want to downplay the legitimate press and all else capable of exposing him for the tool that he is. As Peter Tosh said, “you can fool some people some of the time, but you can’t fool all the people all the time…” 
  
Donald Trump doesn’t listen to Peter Tosh. He is narcissistic enough, and pampered enough through a lifetime of privilege, to really believe he’s the smartest guy in the room.  We must see the legitimate free press as a crucial safeguard of liberty because qualified journalism is the best platform for speaking truth to power. Donald Trump is quite comfortable peddling fictions. He’s the type of liar who never comes correct, but rather doubles down on the tall tales, each one bigger than the one before it, delivered with perpetual and disorientating urgency. The Trump boat is floated on the quiet helplessness of weak mindedness. But President Donald J. Trump seems out of his league on the world stage, as a First World leader anyway. He is unable to articulate even the simplest of actual policy positions. Rather, his tendency towards self-aggrandizement and propensity for gilding the lily more closely resembles the actions of a snake oil salesman or a third world tyrant. Questioning his ability to lead our country is not treasonous, as he would suggest, but rather patriotic as Americans’ true loyalty is always to their country and the Constitution rather than to any one leader, no matter how charismatic. 
  
So now the serious media are knocking at Trump’s door looking for answers and his administration has to work overtime in an effort to outrun the lies with their arsenal of gaslighting, questioning YOUR reality, obfuscating information, dispelling disinformation, making shit up, making ominous threats about loyalty and patriotism, and so on. The Trump team is compiling a liar’s playbook for the modern era. The hypocracy and contradictions are endless. Donald Trump was created through media, particularly of the tabloid variety. He never met an opportunity for self-promotion he didn’t like, a practice that went on for decades. The media gave him the platform to raise a political base, starting with his propagation of racist birther sentiments after the election of Barack Obama. Yet many of his closest advisors are media people, coming from the same profession he deems adversarial. And Trump’s compulsive tweeting is an action that suggests not disappointment, but deep and unyielding faith in media even though his sentiments are of the cynical and self-serving variety. 
  
In the first essay of this Fascism is Real series, I recommended removing the “deplorables” from your life - those who would lock step along party lines, continue the deceitful narrative of weaker minds and ultimately succumb to fascist tendencies. If there is any justice, they will find the error of their ways soon enough and perhaps even thank you for not contributing to their sickness. The point of this second essay is to defend institutions that promote knowledge and learning: legitimate media, public education, cultural heritage sites, and so forth. These institutions are under attack by the Trump administration, with the endgame being to whip up enough paranoia and public distrust so as to make critical thinking suspect in-and-of-itself.  Once the American people and their instrument for checking the government, the media, have been disenfranchised, Trump’s inner circle will complete the take over they have already started by getting rid of the higher principles of our democracy and consolidating power amongst themselves in order to exploit power for personal wealth. 
  
But know this: all the rhetoric coming from the Trump camp can be turned on its head. Develop an instinct for pointing out the hypocrisy – if not the outright lies - and respond, but not with reactionary fervor.  Stay sane and logical and grounded in facts. We must not capitulate to a developing tyrant that chooses to promote “alternative” facts. 
  
 

Fascism is Real (Essay #1): Call It for What It Is 

Note that many of the incessant flag-waving patriots are a-okay with fascism. They might not realize it, or they might not be honest w/ themselves. They might be scared, or weary, or just assholes, or a combination thereof. But they are out there and wanting uniformity and name tags and they will probably be very agreeable to far worse in the name of "safety" and "coexistence" and "prosperity" and whatever other devolution towards oppressive sloganeering. 

These people, budding and blooming fascists alike, talk a big game about freedom, but it's an empty conceit and self-serving. They are hostile towards intellectualism. They utilize a populist message, but it is patronizing. When it comes to freedom and the exercise of liberty, the strict ideological bent of a fascist only allows for an impatient nod – at best - towards the justice end of the equation. They don’t have an active legacy in the civil rights battle, for instance. Fascists are not arbiters of freedom, or keepers of the moral high ground. Their expertise in the fight is limited to strength in numbers. 
  
The problem is that oppressive ideologies are growing in number. The reasons are many and complex, and this is not something a fascist is likely to explore with you. Don’t let ignorance work in their favor. Don’t bog down in the bullshit by trying to engage with a fascist. It’s a waste of time and energy. They will take advantage of your goodwill and exploit your desire to share ideas. They’ve given into a worldview that dims curiosity and prohibits self-reflection. A fascist will turn any attention into a validation of self-importance. Let the fascists pound sand in their sad attempts to whitewash history. 
  
Fascism is real. There is a point where a person can become toxic. Seriously, break free from those looking to steal your space and outlaw your liberties. Move on and live your life to the fullest in spite of them. Deep down, a person of such persuasion knows they are lost. The big lie is holding everything together for a fascist, and thus their ideological action becomes that much more desperate, severe and dangerous. The mono-cultural world will eventually run roughshod. Get out from under the grip and get out now. Move forward and beyond, and let the brutes to sort through the wreckage of their own making. 

Music Movie Review: Thoughts on the Oasis Documentary “Supersonic”  

“Supersonic”, a new documentary about Oasis that was released in late 2016, shows the legendary dysfunction between the Gallagher brothers in their band, Oasis. They were very different as individuals and they didn’t get along – not even a little bit. Band chemistry was poor, and the media couldn’t get enough of the drama. Said dysfunction and their penchant for candor made the brothers Gallagher great interview subjects during their heyday. And I don’t mean to undersell the music either. Oasis was unquestionably one of the biggest bands in the world for a few years. They impacted culture. 
  
The film does a good job of telling the story of the band and its impact on pop culture. Oasis had two chiefs, brothers Noel and Liam Gallagher. Noel wrote the songs and, while in my opinion was not a musical genius, is obviously smarter than most of those around him. His brother Liam sang the songs and, in his own words, “just stood over there looking fucking great.” With participation from band members and other core associates, this documentary is a solid chronicling of the band’s rise from humble beginnings to worldwide fame and eventual burnout. If you visited the cul-de-sac of BritPop in the mid to late 1990s, Oasis could not be ignored. They were huge, and they obnoxiously let everyone know it. In the end, the notable thing is not what they did and said but how success found this band despite their frequent episodes of genuine bad behavior and limited musicality. 
  
I don’t love or hate the music of Oasis. I’m somewhere above indifference. I appreciate their existence, but they are not a personal influence. If pressed, my opinion would be that Oasis trended towards being heavy handed and derivative - both sonically and lyrically. Basically, better music can be found elsewhere. 
  
Personal critique of the music aside, I see Oasis as kind of a rock and roll blessing. On the surface the band didn’t seem very interesting: typical four-on-the-floor rock with a pedestrian look and a borrowed hook. Their broad appeal at times reflected a hooliganism that could overtake anything likable about them. But, there is more to the story, morning glory. 
  
“Supersonic” doesn’t shy away from the band’s collective shit personality. But the warts and all approach also opens the lid on the band’s humor, emotion, and hey, they were productive enough to constitute a real rock and roll minute. And thank goodness for that. Rock music began a slow and steady decline in the 1990s. Oasis fought the good fight by saying what they felt, and in the process eliciting laughter and something/ anything in way of passion from its audience. They at least kept things interesting. 
  
My takeaway from “Supersonic” is that Noel and Liam Gallagher made damn sure that rock and roll was not going to die on their watch. You didn’t have to like them. They didn’t have to like you. Take it or leave it. But, the tension and antagonism implied in such an agreement between artist and audience saves this particular band from being a pop music cliché. 
  
“Supersonic”, the documentary about Oasis, is 122 minutes and a solid watch. 
  
 SLP Rating: 5/6 beers. That’s four beers for the subject and quality of filmmaking, and an extra beer for the Rock. 
 

Big Lies in the Post Fact World  

It's an unwitting absurdity to hear so-called media professionals try to make sense of a "post-factual world," as if it's a real thing. The post factual world doesn't exist outside of conscious stupidity. Reject it and reject these hacks propagating the notion. The FACT that most people in the United States give equal if not more attention to tabloid sensationalism as they do to political realism is indicative of a decline in the nation’s character. It’s a victory for targeted marketing that comes at the expense of qualified journalism. 

Yes, plenty of people buy into fake news. It shouldn’t surprise at this point - it is not a new phenomena. Does it have consequences in the culture? Of course! But we’re losing our way to give into the notion that numbers of subscribers equate with legitimacy. This is setting the table for the big lie – the manipulative lever used by the powers that be to put across a self-serving agenda. It should mortify us to see people turn fake news into a tool for creating a president and forwarding fascist ideology. If you’re a journalist, ask real questions of the post fact world and don't settle for less than an answer to those questions... 

And those of us interested in substance need to support these journalists. It’s a very imperfect world, and the real stories are not easy to tell. Diminishing the stature of hacks in the media is one way to start mooring the truth. Personally, I’m angered by professional pundits who sit comfortably in cable-TV land making lots of money and tell us how things are without knowing what people are actually thinking or feeling out on the streets. We can support accuracy in journalism by not engaging in the bullshit, and through investing in enterprises displaying an institutional integrity, by restoring the concept of credibility killers, by lifting up and sharing a noble cause, and by displaying a little grit beyond that. 

The reality is, post-fact living won’t bring very much in the way of intellectual nourishment or take you very far down the road towards sustainability. Last I checked, a well-made house still requires skilled engineering. If you wind up in the hospital, you're going to want the attention of a real doctor. Need legal advice? You can go to a lawyer or consult a fortune cookie. We are free to make our choices. But there are good choices and bad choices. And each time we participate in a bad choice, we legitimize the big lie and contribute to the destruction of real journalism.

Thoughts on the Democratic Process…  

I appreciate the enthusiasm that people bring to the democratic process. It's been rare where politics on the national stage reflect the thoughts in my head, or the choices I've made with my life. It has happened once or twice, and that's about it. The 2016 presidential election definitely DID NOT jive with anything I was thinking. The pendulum is always going back and forth, left and right, but I didn't foresee the country taking such a hard regressive turn on a mass scale. It's disappointing to say the least. Such a feeling is made worse by the meltdown on the left and the tin ear of disconnect coming from the right. And now it seems like everyone is up in arms. 
  
I join those who are basically mourning the decline of democracy. But, I can't say I'm totally surprised by the election or its aftermath. I'm depressed, worried, anxious, angry. Thinking about the dangers and the fight ahead, yeah. I can point to plenty of "reasons" for what happened - convenient media, the inability of a body public to resist the marketing, rampant unchecked bigotry, political narcissism disguised as purity, moral convenience, cultural tribalism, communal disconnect, subterfuge, poor strategy, the left getting in its own way, old fashioned stupidity - on and on. I understood this was all embedded into the process to some extent prior. But the results of the 2016 presidential election feel no less pathetic.  
  
What next for democracy and the republic? Knowing people really care about this country gives me some comfort. This is a nation's work, divisions and all. With that said, I have no use for willful and harmful ignorance; that which would allow fear, intimidation and prejudice to leverage a point of view. Fascism is afoot. I think it’s important to cultivate, foster and encourage expression that fucks with anything that approaches absolutism in an ideological sense. Beyond that, it’s time to get stepping ahead of issues that are bogging us down. At some point, the talking stops and the work begins.  The mission: build coalitions, get busy, and stay involved. 
  
I’m under no delusions. I think things will get worse with Trump, potentially much worse. There will be many instances of bad behavior and worse policy ahead to deal with. But, the process of getting my own little house in order is reinvigorated, and the fight continues. For anyone claiming that they won something by all this – electing an “outsider” who inherited a fortune, built a society page celebrity brand as a glorified realtor, has a limited grasp on the constitution, who exorcises fascist tendencies, spreads racist invective, and exhibits a sociopathic penchant for lying – it rings hollow. They made a wholly uninteresting choice to be on the wrong side of history. 

Silicon Valley Could Use a Good Skeptic 

For all the talk of saving the world, the techies of Silicon Valley tend to practice a most savage form of capitalism. The law on the SF peninsula is to kill or be killed, industrially speaking. The big players seek monopoly and it's basically by any means necessary - suffocating market share, through aggressive acquisition, leveraging venture capital firms against each other - whatever, however, and so be it. And your employment is at will. 
  
For all the talk of transparency, Silicon Valley functions within a walled off corporatism. They might've torn out the cubicles, but the tech industry doesn't move without investor pools being in it to win it. Not that there is anything wrong with this. But don't get it twisted: ambition is the driving virtue. The prize is reaching your payday and then being able to write your own story.  
  
"Revolution" is a buzzword in Silicon Valley and it's hype. The hype asks for your best self, and it demands a certain level of myopia to sell it forward day after day. Most of us won't get there; we won’t be celebrated for our best self and asked for our glorified story about a well-lived dream. But don’t despair as we can always search the discount bins of soon to be obsolete smart device accessories for a shoulder to cry on.  
  
For all the mythologizing about how Founders sacrifice and strike forth from humble origins, Silicon Valley is a leading contributor to the growing wealth gap. Tech money dominates the Bay Area, and it’s the money that most people love. The notion of lifting the next Founder by the bootstraps is a comfortable first world conceit. Silicon Valley often sets goals that are noble, and exciting, but most of the talk about social engineering and AI is just ultra modern megalomaniacal BS. Where are the skeptics?  
  
Let's cure cancer before jobbing out radical new ways to make life more according to our whims. Let's innovate ways that allow the elderly to age with dignity before we lionize another leader in a hoodie and cargo shorts. It's a Halloween costume for Crissakes! Let's out-economize the factory farm and big box store before we pretend the next round of venture capital will transform reality as we know it.  
  
The world is changing and quickly. Sure, techie assholes have something to do with it, no doubt. Let me be clear: I'm not down on technology. My iPhone has more computer than what orchestrated the moon landing. I use a handful of smart devices like a pragmatist. My issue is more about the lack of challenge put to venture capitalists that start taking on a God complex after rolling a lucky strike or two. I hate the spawning of imitators that vast wealth inspires. I have contempt for Gatekeepers that can’t resist the marketing. Silicon Valley could use a good skeptic. 

An Appreciation for Woody Guthrie 

Troubadour is a French word that means a poet who writes verse to music. The word also implies hard traveling. Chances are if you have something to say with a song, moss won’t be growing under your feet. Woodrow Wilson “Woody”  Guthrie was quintessentially a troubadour of American music. He sang organic story-songs about everyday events from town to city, for the people and to the powers that be. His influence is legendary, though it might seem quaint in today’s din of self-reverential brand building.  
  
Woody Guthrie was born in Okemah, OK, in 1912. In Guthrie’s childhood, Okemah was a small farming town caught up in the changing times. By the early 1930s, severe drought and a failure to use countering farming techniques brought hard times to Okemah and towns like it across the wide North American prairies. It led to an exodus of people – Dust Bowl refugees - leaving the devastation in search of opportunity out West. 
  
As one of those people who went west in search of a better life, Woody Gutherie told the story of the Dust Bowl and the Great Depression in songs like “I Ain’t Got No Home in This World Anymore.” He wandered, working thankless odd jobs, penniless, family broken, and observing the growing scale of injustice caused by the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. These concerns would remain centered in his work as his reputation for being a truth-teller of colloquial tales grew. It’s not to be sentimentalized: Woody Guthrie articulated the American experience of his era perhaps better than any poet, and certainly better than any musician of his day. 
  
Guthrie was at a creative peak from the mid 1930s through the 1940s. You can get a good sense of living history through songs like “Pastures of Plenty,” “The Jolly Banker,” “1913 Massacre,” “Do Re Mi,” “Pretty Boy Floyd,” “Working Hard Blues,” “Grand Coulee Dam,” “The Sinking of the Ruben James” and more.  His most famous song, “This Land is Your Land,” has a realistic shot of replacing the current national anthem. His best songs still hold a rare power and urgency; conceivably as necessary today as back when. 
  
Woody Guthrie is on the short list of the great 20th Century Songwriters. With all due to respect to Jimmie Rogers, I would argue Guthrie’s range of styles, his presence of character and ultimately his cultural sophistication would make him the originator of the singer-songwriter concept. Of course, “singer-songwriter” became something entirely different – a marketing term - after Bob Dylan and the mass media got involved, but Woody Guthrie is THE original when I think of that term. 

It’s Time for Defenders of the 2nd Amendment to Grow Up 

The 2nd amendment to the US constitution reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” I don’t know what this means exactly, but I think any reasonable interpretation has to be communal in spirit, rather than the more self-serving propaganda we get from the National Rifle Association. 
  
I support the right to bear arms, but it’s low on my list of concerns. The NRA’s agenda seems misguided in our modern age. There are plenty of guns, and yet the world is no safer. Violence begets violence. Guns are tools of violence. There are too many guns. The access to obtaining a gun is too easy, largely thanks to the NRA. 
  
The NRA lacks the courage to have an honest conversation about gun control. They’d rather push the falsehood of the Federal government conspiring to take away guns, or promote racial prejudices and class war, or stoke fears about an inevitable apocalypse. The people buying into all this are not freedom warriors or heroes. They are simply good for the gun business. 
  
To experience freedom, one has to want to be free. Freedom doesn’t mean living in fear. The NRA doesn’t resemble a free society to me. They look like a reactionary and frightful group of Debbie Downers; constantly fretting about losing liberties while banking on the anxiety and paranoia of chicken little gun consumers. 
  
As for the words of the 2nd Amendment… There is no mention of a right to build an arsenal in anticipation of the apocalypse. The NRA doesn’t seem orientated around the concept of a well-regulated militia either, seeing as they are resistant to any suggestion of REGULATIONS. The definition of “Arms” has evolved mightily since the genesis of the 2nd Amendment too. 
  
All the amendments have limits based upon reasonable interpretation. For instance, the 1st Amendment grants the right to free speech, but you can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater. You can’t incite a riot. The 3rd Amendment restricts the quartering of soldiers in private homes without the homeowner’s consent. Who even thinks about the 3rd amendment? 
  
I would argue that the root fears underlying the prominence of the 2nd Amendment should apply equally to the 3rd Amendment. Both amendments were written in the spirit of mitigating governmental overreach. But the context behind these amendments was much different in the late 1700s. 
  
The Bill of Rights was created in a less habitable time for democracy. The young US government lacked institutional framework and legislative precedence. There was a standing army left over from the Revolutionary War that no one quite knew what to do with. Times have changed since then and the idea that US government will squat on your land willy-nilly is absurd. This is why no one talks about the 3rd Amendment. 
  
The government isn’t looking to take away guns either. The reason why the 3rd Amendment is in the background of consciousness, while the 2nd Amendment is front and center is because the 3rd Amendment doesn’t sell guns (or anything else for that matter). The best arguments for the 2nd amendment condone responsible, qualified gun ownership. The worst - and more prevalent - arguments are self-serving: being armed in defense against other citizens. 
  
To cut to the chase: the main reason people have guns is because it gets them off. It has nothing to do with being a hero. So be it. But, in consideration of a weapon’s violence and random potential to harm others, the access to entry should resemble that which would make a good soldier and a good citizen. The process should be transparent. Beyond that, guns are basically a security blanket for adults, psychologically appeasing perhaps, but not sensible.  

Julian Assange Kind of Seems Like a Dick 

Julian Assange practices a journalism branded on a liar-liar-pants-on-fire conceit. Assange has gained notoriety through his organization Wikileaks by stealing private information and then releasing it as sensational evidence of grand conspiracy. In keeping with journalistic prudence, he keeps his sources anonymous. But, outside of that, Assange strikes me as more of a self-promoter than a journalist. I don’t think he even has real journalist credentials. 
  
The high profile of Wikileaks rubs me the wrong way. And I really don’t like that Assange chose to operate like a pirate, but then shifted gears to become a persecuted truth teller when in the grip of the powers that be. Is he an outlaw, an advocate for justice or just a fucked up dude who got a little too deep into the muck? I don’t know... But I think Wikileaks lacks operational consistency, which is a credibility killer in the hero business. At some point one has to decide if activism is to be carried forth with a moral compass. 
  
I won’t go so far as to suggest that victims of Wikileaks - primarily corporations and government institutions – are worthy of our sympathies. It’s a jungle out there. I also understand that the pursuit of justice travels through plenty of grey area. But, Wikileaks seems to be ethically challenged on a fundamental level. Private conversations exposed for public interpretation and consumption usually lack proper context. Information lacking in context is ultimately noise and it won’t typically stand up in a court of law. That’s journalism 101. 
  
But Wikileaks isn’t tailored for courts of law. It’s designed to stir courts of public opinion. Wikileaks is more of a self-righteous TMZ than an organization dedicated to gathering and contextualizing all the moving pieces. Real journalism is considerate towards philosophy, ethics, and historical precedence. Wikileaks vomits information that is tantalizingly forbidden. Wikileaks might say the “system” is broken, but in reality it thrives off exploiting that broken system for its own gain. 
  
Currently, Julian Assange is holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. He faces arrest and a possible string of international extraditions if he leaves. He sees himself as a political prisoner, which I think is a bit of a leap. While he may not be a bad guy per say, the situation he’s in shouldn’t come as a surprise. For one thing, he hacked classified information, undermining to any nation’s national security. It’s a bummer he can’t enjoy his notoriety more openly I suppose. Then again, did he really think it would play out any other way?

Thoughts About Napster and the Documentary “Downloaded”  

Napster, the extinct file-sharing service company from the early 2000s, had a fast and furious lifecycle; kind of like a supernova that comes out of nowhere, burns bright and then fades fast. The company flamed out so quickly that its influence now seems to be cast to the back pages of history. 

The documentary "Downloaded" makes a good case for Napster being one of the more influential tech companies in this young 21st-century. Released in 2012, the film chronicles the company's rise, its extraordinary nadir, and dramatic fall. All the key players within the company are interviewed at length. The film also includes perspective from the relevant tech periphery, in addition to a wide range of opinions from various musicians. It’s worth checking out. 

Watching it brought me back to when I moved to San Francisco in late 1999, during what became the first dot-com bubble. SF and the Bay were bustling. People were pouring into the city, and, as a result, people were also leaving the city in droves, in what I would later recognize to be a reoccurring pattern in boom and bust cycles. The city was undergoing a massive cultural shift because the cost of living in limited space was becoming too expensive and too exhausting for many. 

Back in 1999, I was attracted to the music and the general industrious nature of artists in the Bay. I was also drawn in by the variety of new media and wanted to be a part of it. Upon arrival, I was shocked by how expensive things were and nearly defeated by the complete lack of available housing. I knew there would be challenges, but I didn't fully realize... 

My life got fucked up pretty quickly. I worked a string of crazy jobs to stay afloat. My first apartment in San Francisco was only a slight improvement from living in my car. My personal woes were made to seem much worse by being immersed in a shifting culture that was always chasing the Next Big Thing. The word "sexiness" was thrown around frequently at the time. The big venture-capital money flooding the Bay Area could make anything look sexy. 

It was a goofy time and a certain shallowness of character tended to rule the day, as will happen when events become saturated with hoopla and hype. But there was also an air of real revolution about what was happening in the Bay Area. The change brought about by advances in digital technology didn't bleed slowly into the world of general business; they landed like meteorites. The Information Age was upon us, suddenly, after a few decades of casual speculation of what it would look like. 

The original Napster (there were two incarnations, the second being inconsequential) was one of the larger meteorites, coming into existence in June 1999 and succumbing to lawsuits in July 2001, and everyone was talking about it back then. During the company’s brief run, it can arguably be considered the face of how the Internet 1.0 influenced and altered perceptions of art, commerce and culture. Napster shook the entertainment industry to its core within months of being in existence. In a broader sense, Napster initiated the common dialogue about “shared economy,” and it pretty much antiquated the notion that nothing was truly free or without cost. 
  
Napster made downloading music free and easy. In a nutshell, you could get any song you wanted at the cost-free click of a button. You could also allow your digital music collection to be shared with others. From an intellectual property standpoint, it was grade-A thievery. It was hard to call it anything else: the creators of the product weren’t being compensated. The defense of “sharing” was typically a jumble of moral relativism. Bottom line: the stuff was free so why pay for it? 
  
At some point, the surrounding arguments gave way to an understanding that the technology genie was out of the bottle. The train carrying the shared economy had already left the station. Napster didn’t survive the extended conversation - corporate interests representing the status quo shut them down and fast. But, the old-school model of the entertainment business didn’t survive either. We are less than two decades removed from that era and very little of it resembles how business gets done today. 
  
Today’s young adults are the first generation of people to grow up with a normalization of horizontal authority, meaning authority given to the many rather than a select few, also known as vertical authority. Vertical authority was the value system holding sway for a couple hundred preceding centuries. Horizontal authority is basically the governing tenant of a sharing economy. And its here to stay with companies like Uber and Airbnb. Future generations will look at the broad strokes of how horizontal authority came into wide practice and wonder why people initially challenged it. 
  
Historians in the future might not see anything particularly brilliant within the inner-workings of Napster – the idea behind the company was pedestrian, the technology was assessable in its time, the personalities meh, they were simply the first to implement an inevitable idea – but the company made a significant impact along the timeline of our evolving Modern Age. I remember using Napster. It did what people said it would more/ less. Their service offered a certain convenience that was understandably appealing. Personally, I preferred a trip to the record store – and still do.