A Quick Review of "American Horror Story"

 

The first thing I want to get down here is that “American Horror Story” is a really good show. Normally, a statement like that would be followed with “...and you should watch it,” but not this time. Why not? Because, and this is coming from a staunch opponent of all kinds of censorship, this show is not for everyone. It's certainly not for children.

“Duh,” you say, “it's in the 'horror' genre. It's meant to be scary, and disturbing. So it's not for kids.”

Congratulations, parent-of-the-year, but I'm not buying it. Take a horror movie like the first installment to the “Nightmare on Elm Street” series, broadly considered a classic of the genre. Watch it as an adult, and it's not scary. It's silly. The point of that movie isn't to scare adults—all the main characters are kids.

Or take the film adaptation to Stephen King's IT. I wasn't allowed to watch movies like that as a kid, but many, many of my peers were, and the result of it imprinting our generation single-handedly decimated the birthday party clown industry. Probably.

And sure, it was a movie about adults, but they were adults re-living a trauma from their childhoods, the trauma that reunited them and brought them back to their hometown to face a demon that hunted children.

Essentially what I'm arguing is that many of these scary movies, despite their ratings, are made to frighten children. “Well, that's obvious, isn't it?” you're no doubt thinking, “Adults are steadier, with a firmer grasp on reality. You can't really scare them, not in this day and age.”

(Or you might be saying, “Your hypothetical audience responses are already contradicting each other!” To which I say, shut up. NC-17 ratings aside, everyone knows that teenagers are the most powerful target demographic in the nation, and even movies that claim not to be for kids are secretly doing everything they can to appeal to those kids, a la Joe Camel)

Enter “American Horror Story,” which is not for kids. I can't say that enough.

The show has started its second season with new characters and a new location, giving some of the notable actors from the first season a chance inhabit new roles. What both seasons and (hopefully) future seasons retain in common is a sprawling nature, telling snippets of various stories centered around the location drawn from different points in history. With this, it can echo and pay homage to classic horror films or period pieces even as it creates an aura of timelessness about the horror, a sense of persistence that evil possesses that leaves it haunting foul places long after every inhabitant has died.

But it is not just haunted houses (or asylums).

The main thing I like about this show is that it is a conglomeration of many horror movie universes. See, each work of fiction creates its own sort of universe that operates on its own sort of rules: in many movie universes, ghosts are real. In some, those ghosts have certain kinds of powers. In other movie universes, corpses can be reanimated, either as zombies or in the fashion of Frankenstein's monster. In some movie universes, the devil is real, and desires to possess human flesh. In others, aliens study us and wait to make a move for conquest.

In the “American Horror Story” universe, all of these tropes are on the table, all of these conventions can come into play, and even interact with each other.

So, in a single story arc, nearly every kind of movie monster available can make an appearance, which sounds great to the kids who loved “Freddy vs. Jason” style crossover stories.

But there's another kind of movie monster, one that is featured on “American Horror Story” far more often than any other kind. It is not a supernatural monster, not a freak result of twisted scientific experiments, not a lingering spirit of terror avenging some atrocity from its spent life, not an extraterrestrial being of unfathomable intellect. The monster we are shown most frequently in this show is simple, unabashed humanity.

Jason Voorhees could never happen. “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” could never happen. Despite what many Internet memesters are apparently hoping, “Night of the Living Dead” could (probably?) never happen. But the acts committed by regular characters on “American Horror Story?” They could happen, and we know this because they have happened, do happen, and will happen. A passing knowledge of the news and human nature is enough to affirm that.

So there is a fundamental parallel between the victims in “American Horror Story” and the horrific monsters that they face, and a stark realism to the show that exists alongside its more fantastical nature, lightening the burden of suspending disbelief. We know that ghosts don't exist (don't we?), but we also know that people, real people, can be capable of terrifying things, and this is a reality that “American Horror Story” makes plainer than any other.

And that's not for kids. Sorry. I'm okay with them thinking ghosts are real or that clowns are actually terrifying spider-demons in disguise, because those are fantastical, flighty, silly notions.

But the fact that monsters are very real and they look and act just like anyone else? As an adult, I'm barely ready to accept that, so don't inflict it on your kids.

That being said, “American Horror Story” is a really good show...and you should watch it (if you're grown up and are absolutely into that kind of thing).

A Beginner's Guide to Hip-Hop

I know what you're thinking. Okay, actually I don't. Either you're already a fan of Hip-Hop, and you saw the title and thought you'd give it a read to see whether or not you agree with me, or you're not a fan of Hip-Hop at all, in which case you probably thought something along the lines of “Kids these days rabble rabble rabble” and went on to read something else before getting this far. So why, do you ask, am I writing this article at all, when its target audience won't even really want to read it?

I don't really have an answer to that question. Stop asking such hard questions! What is this, the Spanish Inquisition?

Look, really I'm hoping for the off chance that someone will think “Hey, let's see what he has to say. Maybe he can make a reasoned argument that will change my mind!” for the first time in the history of the internet, ever. Yes, I'm counting on the one-in-a-million chance that someone on the internet will lend me credibility which I by no means deserve.

Nonetheless, here I am ready to engage this sisyphean labor, and I promise you, those of the target audience that made it this far, I am doing it for your own good. For those of you who already like Hip-Hop and are reading, congratulations on joining the rest of everybody in reading something that you know only reaffirms your already held and probably unjustified beliefs. Well, let's get started.

Step One: Turn Off the Fucking Radio

People complain about rap music. A lot. Like, all the time. They say/blog/twit/Facebook “It's degrading to women!” or “It's so repetitive!” or “It glorifies violence!” or “It's just inane, materialistic macho bullshit!” And I felt the exact same way all through my high school years. I'd ride the bus, the other kids singing along to Ludacris' “What's Your Fantasy,” and I wanted nothing more at that moment than to ki-ki-ki-ki-kick Luda in the ba-ba-ba-balls.

I was a Rock 'n' Roll kid. I grew up listening to Nirvana and Alice in Chains and Soundgarden and Pearl Jam, because that's what my older brothers listened to, and it kicked epic amounts of ass. So I was into Rock, and I knew it.

But was I into Johnny Cash, Slayer, Led Zeppelin, Death Cab for Cutie, or Coldplay? Certainly I wasn't into all of them, am still not into some of them and probably never will be. Because there are a lot of different things that fall into the “Rock” genre, some of which I liked, some of which I didn't care for, and some of which made me want to remove my ears and stretch them out into a noose with which to hang the lead singer of Dashboard Confessional.
(Okay, I admit to liking that one Dashboard Confessional song when I was 14 years old. So did you. You know the one. Shut up. Just shut up.)

The point is that “Rock” can mean a lot of different things, and if you knew what you were looking for, you could find really good rock, and if you didn't, you were stuck listening to soulless commercial garbage. And there's honestly a huge market for soulless commercial garbage; that's the “commercial” part. Some people in the music industry treat it as just that, an industry, but that doesn't mean there aren't people out there who still believe music to be an art and they go about making it with that in mind. The same is true for Hip-Hop: Nicki Minaj and the bulk of things put out by Lil Wayne (everything The Carter III and after) are objectively piles of shit pinched out into a microphone and mass produced to ensure that the bulk of the population remains blissfully moronic. But if you think that all of a kind of music is just like the stuff that you hear on the radio or in bars and clubs, then you are totally, dreadfully wrong. How would you feel if I refused to listen to any Rock 'n' Roll because Miley Cyrus happens to whine over a guitar and drums, or because Jimmy Buffet employs the 12-bar blues structure? Exactly. You'd feel like I was being dismissive towards a rich and nuanced art form based on an unfair generalization.

Turn off the radio. Seriously. The radio is for idiots who need to be told what music to like, and if you don't like it, it means you're not an idiot. Good for you.

Step Two: Learn (Some of) the History

It would have been too easy to name this entry anything involving the word “roots,” and if you don't know why that would have been an awful, horrible thing, well, then I don't know. There are these people, they're called black people. They used to be called African Americans, until people realized how ludicrous (not Ludacris) it was once people kept slipping and calling Nelson Mandela an African American and Charlize Theron became a naturalized American citizen after being born in South Africa. Yeah, we've been dumbasses about race since pretty much ever.

Point is, there's these black people, see, and there's this thing called institutional racism that totally sucks and shit, and made (makes) life more difficult for them then it should have been (should be). Progress has been made from the Sammy Davis, Jr. “sidekick” days, certainly, but anyway, things hit a real low in the 1980's. Blah blah Reaganomics blah blah crack blah CIA blah blah—look, read a book, okay? Point is, with great suffering, an outpouring of great art comes as one of those shitty silver linings that's totally not worth it that will eventually be bought out and turned into a money machine by the very kinds of people it was directed against and twisted into a way to reinforce the kinds of stereotypes that—

Okay, I'm getting off track here.

For being as young of an art form as it is, there is a bit of dispute over how it got started, and honestly there's probably a bit of truth to most of the theories, except for the one that Al Gore invented it. I'm pretty sure he didn't.

But there are two main theories that sound fairly credible, one starting in the clubs and the other starting in the streets, and ne'er the twain shall meet. Actually, the twain meet all the time, but if I hadn't said it it wouldn't rhyme (I'm on a roll!).

The “streets” origin would be the dozens, a call-and-response battle of wits first recorded by a white psychologist (see: cracker-ass. Dammit, there goes the roll I was on!) in 1939, but which many people (see: cracker-asses) theorize has roots (there it is again) reaching all the way back to 18th Century Africa. If you're not familiar with the dozens, the quickest way to explain it is as an exchange of “yo mama” jokes that goes back and forth until there is a clear winner. If that sounds a lot like a rap battle to you, then congratulations on being able to make a connection.

The second origin story of Hip-Hop basically goes like this: Back in the 70's and early 80's, clubs and house parties and the crowds they attracted were all about the DJ's (or disc jockeys, for the cracker-asses) and their various mixes of music. As a means of hyping up the crowd, an emcee (or MC, or Master of Ceremonies, for the cracker-asses) would be up on stage with the DJ shouting encouragement to dance and have a good time into a microphone, many staples of which endure to this day (“Put your hands in the air,” etc...).

Eventually the two of these things, encouraging a crowd over music and battling with witticisms, colluded together and made Hip-Hop. Most people credit this collusion to Kool Herc, and rightfully so. So, there you have it, from the very beginning, Hip-Hop was nothing but feel good party music. Yeah, no. Almost immediately young fans influenced by DJ Kool Herc saw the emerging art form as a vehicle through which to express the sociopolitical realities of black oppression, which gave us people like Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five, and furious they were. I cannot express how important it is for you to click on that link, because “The Message” is one of the best things to happen to 20th Century music since Paul met John and joined the Quarrymen.

The 90's would see the meteoric rise of Hip-Hop to an international sensation, to the extent that artists could go from rapping about being broke to rapping about being rich. Yes, those both link to the same song, because nobody charts the course of that trajectory more eloquently than the Notorious B.I.G.

And, aside from a few other noteworthy mentions, that's basically all the history of Hip-Hop you need.

Step Three: Find Your Niche

Gangsta Rap. Conscious Rap. Independent stuff, the second link of which contains a visual history of Hip-Hop in and of itself. Nerdcore, the most oxymoronic portmanteau in the history of music. Whatever the hell you call this unique foray into the awesome.

In the time since its inception, Hip-Hop has become every bit as multifaceted as Rock ever was. This, just like every other art form, has only been helped along at an explosive rate by the advent of the Internet, which is rapidly replacing the aspects of the music industry related to marketing and promotion, cutting out the middle-man bureaucracies and connecting the artists more directly with their target demographics than has ever before been possible. MTV is replaced by YouTube. Radio stations are replaced by Pandora. Record stores are replaced by iTunes. Magazines are replaced by Hip-Hop blogs. Music blogs in general I cannot recommend highly enough, whatever kind of music it is you're into. There's a niche out there for pretty much everything, and your interests will be no exceptions.

But, really, the point is to give Hip-Hop a chance. I absolutely hated Hip-Hop my freshman year of college, but then I heard Atmosphere and the whole landscape shifted beneath me. Here was Slug (the rapper for Atmsophere) making music about insecurities and rejection and the mundanity of his life: no overblown claims about his riches and bitches, no weak double entendres about how nice his car was, just real, gritty, relatable shit. It opened my eyes to the fact that, stripped bare of the music and commercialism, Hip-Hop is poetry, and like all poetry, some of it is really, really good and some of it is skull-numbingly bad. So go out and find the good stuff.

The Profitability of Child Abuse

Let me preface this article by saying that I am no opponent to the mental health industry. I personally have benefitted greatly from both psychiatry and psychotherapy, and do not consider all practitioners to be quacks and hacks. Certainly, psychology as a science is limited by its subjectivity, keeping it from being as cut-and-dried as regular medicine―as complicated as the human body is, the human psyche is more so. But this is not to say that there is no value in seeking help with depression, anxiety, post traumatic stress, or any of a number of other conditions that make life difficult to live. However, amongst the ranks of any profession there are those who are good at their jobs and those who fall short, those who sincerely work to better the conditions of their clients and those who work simply for the benefit of a paycheck.

I cycled through a number of therapists and psychiatrists before I found a working combination: every person is different, every practitioner is different, and you have to look around to find one that suits you. If you find yourself engaged in a course of treatment that doesn't seem right, or doesn't suit you, or just plain isn't working, then just stop and seek help elsewhere. Seems obvious, doesn't it?
But this article is going to be about people who don't have that option.

Residential Treatment Centers (RTCs), better known as rehab clinics, may bring to mind celebrities who, after making some sort of gaffe or mistake (or inebriated crime), go there to repair their reputations and restore their family-friendly images. But RTCs aren't only for adults―many children and teenagers also suffer from problems of substance abuse and debilitating mental health issues, and where there is demand, supply shall follow. A report entitled "State Regulation of Residential Facilities for Children with Mental Illness" found that, as of 2002, over 3,500 such treatment centers especially for youth were in operation in the US, and their popularity has only grown since then.
While there is certainly a looming mental health crisis at work in this country, this explosion of RTCs may not be the solution, for any of a number of reasons.

They are typically involuntary. Remember, this is not juvenile detention―these children never had to have done anything illegal, or even immoral, beyond invoking the displeasure of their parents. These programs tend to be a bit more intensive than your ordinary boarding school and claim to have a larger mental health focus than a boot camp, and due to the types of kids that end up in these places they have been colloquially known as "brat camps." So it should go without saying that the kids would rather stay home with their friends and family than be shipped away to undergo a treatment they view as invasive and unnecessary.

And that is actually a very, very big problem, for more reasons than you might suppose.
First of all, ask any therapist how easy it is to make any kind of progress with a patient who has zero interest in undergoing therapy. That ought to be enough right there to make the price tag of thousands of dollars a month not worth it.

Second of all, imagine an environment in which kids are removed from every semblance of autonomy, self-possession, or rights. Imagine the concept of "tough love," but from strangers who feel no love towards the kids they are being tough to. Imagine the types of adults this situation might attract, with complete control to wield over a mass of vulnerable, discredited young people.
Which is why it ought to come as no surprise that there have been several stories surfacing in the news of various forms of abuse, countless personal anecdotes, video evidence, and a number of lawsuits filed. So the important question to ask is this: Where is the outrage? Where are the investigations? Where is the 24-hour news coverage? Why do parents continue to send their kids to these places, and refuse to remove them, even when their kids tell them what is happening there?

By way of answering that question, I am now going to ask you to engage in a brief thought experiment: Take your average, everyday teen. Now, imagine that teen has something to tell you. Is your first impulse to listen closely and consider his or her points? Of course not, because teenagers are stupid, inexperienced, hormonal messes. Now add to that effect the unfortunate label of "troubled" teen, and what happens to his or her already negligible credibility then? Thus the double bind in which many of these kids are placed.

And of course it doesn't help that, in addition to limiting phone contact between kids and their parents, a number of these institution use their supposed positions of expertise to explicitly tell parents not to believe any of their children's complaints, as in this passage from the West Ridge Academy's website:

Typically your child will be uncomfortable or in denial as to the reasons he/she is here. He/she may try several types of manipulation to get your attention and to help himself/herself cope …

• Triangulation/Splitting. Example: Your child gets you alone and tells you about the mean things staff members are saying to him/her.
  
  This is where your child will try to split one parent against the therapist or the other parent to get his/her way. The child's goal is to dismantle those who are holding him/her accountable for his/her actions. Your child may even say, "Don't tell the therapist because I will get into trouble." ...
   
• Fear Factor. Example: "All my roommates are drug addicts or gay." "I am not as bad as everyone else here." "The staff beats up the students." "The food isn't nutritious." "The school isn't very good." This is probably the most subtle and commonly used tool. If your child uses this technique, his/her goal is to split us. Your child is playing upon your fears to attempt to change the outcome. Your child wants West Ridge Academy to become the bad guy. If you have concerns, please check them out with your therapist in a way that continues to support the therapy we are doing. Fears are normal but usually based on false evidence. Never let your child see you challenge staff or West Ridge as a whole. Always bring your concerns to us outside of your child's presence.

Some of these precautions seem like they would be a natural part of a youth RTC's boilerplate concerns.  But again, what recourse does this allow kids if their allegations of abuse are legitimate?  Absolutely none.  In fact, policies as stated above would only lead to the punishment of children who try to speak out for attempting to, in their words, "split" their parents from the staff, which would be viewed as a breach of their program.

Another problem is the fact that a significant number of these places claiming to be practitioners of mental healthcare are actually thinly-veiled religious re-education establishments. West Ridge Academy, in particular, has faced some scrutiny regarding their religious focus in the wake of a series of lawsuits. Their current website has been carefully restructured to be more secular, but a brief perusal of their old site on web.archive.org turns up this policy gem under "A Message from our Director:"
"As tragic as it might seem to some of us, the facts indicate that our government believes the laws governing separation of church and state are violated when governmenr (sic) dollars are used in any program that promotes and teaches religious principles." (Second to last paragraph)

In should go without saying that non-profit mental health institutions are required to be non-denominational.  However, looking over a number of websites for various youth residential treatment centers it is hard to find one that doesn't mention religious or spiritual education and values, and given the nature of the country we live in, they almost definitely are not referring to Judaic, Islamic, or Buddhist values.

At what age is it appropriate for a person to choose what he or she believes in?  In practice, it appears to be the age of 18, but should a young person who displeases his or her parents by exploring alternative belief systems to theirs be legally shipped off to be re-educated?  That is one of the pressing questions of this article.

Now, is all of this to say that residential treatment for youth ought to be eschewed entirely?  Certainly not.  There is a legitimate need for these establishments to exist, or else there wouldn't be so many already.

What needs to happen is an extension of government oversight into the practices of these establishments.  There need to be regular inspections by Child Protective Services, hefty fines and immediate shutdowns of places failing these inspections, and mechanisms in place to ensure that such locations are not taking advantage of children and parents by promising to provide treatment for conditions for which it has been demonstrated that residential treatment is ineffective or inappropriate.

The Death of the Music Industry

Don't let the title make you panic. It's not really the death of the music industry. Actually, it's very likely that the artists you love will be able to make more money off of their work than ever before. Really what we're looking at is a reformation of the industry*, a trend towards a less and less centralized system.

(*I never did like the term “music industry” on a fundamental level anyway. Just the semantics of it, you know? Music is an art, making cars or canning corn is an “industry.”)

We all know the old model of shooting to rock stardom, since it has been portrayed in pop culture so much it really ought to have it's own entry on TVTropes.org: Broke, starving artist/s is/are playing in some dive/honky tonk/shit-hole when he/she/they is/are “discovered” by a slick fast talking businessman/manager/agent whose connections in the aforementioned industry gets the artist/s on the radio/magazine covers/television interviews/MTV in exchange for eternal friendship a sizable share of the money he/she/they make/s. Oh, and the industry gets a bunch of money, too. Most of it, actually.

This is a solid system that has been proven to work since early last century, right? It's developed alongside modern society: It's how we heard of Elvis, Johnny Cash, the Beatles, Led Zeppelin, and everyone else all the way up to Eminem or even Waka Flocka Flame. 

(Quiz: One of these artists has a name that sounds like something a Muppet would say. Which one? Surprisingly it isn't the one whose name is a homonym with delicious candy-coated chocolate.) 

So what could possibly topple the giants of the industry like Interscope and Atlantic Records from their lofty, diamond-studded perches? If you don't know the answer to that already then I have no idea how you even managed to read this. It's the motherfucking INTERNET, with all them razzle-dazzle kids these days with their memes and their ogre-ing and their Irate Birds. 

The internet has taken this business model and turned it right on its head, and now it's shaking it upside down so that change falls out of its pockets and its shirt falls over its face so everyone can point and laugh at its pasty white belly and unusually hairy nipples. It's an elaborate metaphor, but I think you get the idea. The music industry has served an important function by making use of established media avenues to gain exposure for the artists whose music they're trying to sell, and that's all well and good. 

Except that the very media they have connections with for promotional purposes are ALSO dying. 

Do you read newspapers? 
You're probably over 40. 

Do you go to the record store? 
Still over 40. Maybe 30. 

Do you listen to the radio? 
Dude, get an mp3 player already. It's been, like, a decade or something, hasn't it? 

Do you watch music videos on MTV? 
Where did you get your time machine? 

If you are really passionate about the music you listen to, enough that you follow its progression and keep track of your favorite artists, odds are that you've replaced each of these previous things with one or all of these following things: 

Blogs: 
2dopeboyz, OnSmash (or FreeOnSmash, rather), The Hype Machine, Pretty Much Amazing, etc... (One of my favorites is Pigeons and Planes, for their independent eclecticism) 

Internet radio: 
Pandora, iHeartRadio, Last.fm, Grooveshark, etc... 

Downloadable music: 
iTunes Music Store, Amazon MP3 (legal) OR: TPB, MediaFire, HulkShare, FilesTube, or (as a prominent example) the now-defunct MegaUpload (“alternative”) 

Streaming Video (music videos, footage of interviews, live performances, etc.): 
Freakin' YouTube. Duh. Oh, there's lesser sites like Vimeo, but seriously, YouTube's pretty much the only one you need to know, as long as what you're looking for is “acceptable” according to their Terms of Service. 

Honorable Mention: 
DatPiff, where hip-hop artists release their free mixtapes for streaming and download. Self-promotion, baby, and if it ain't quality, nobody will download it.  Okay, that's not entirely true.  But quality will still tend to attract a lot of attention. Very Darwinian. 

Now, I know what you're saying. “How are the artists supposed to make more money if they supposedly get smaller shares of internet royalties, or if people just download all their music for free?” And that's the big question that still needs an answer. 

Parenthetically, Radiohead was on to something with their album “In Rainbows,” which if you didn't hear about, you should do some reading. 

HINT—Here's the notable quote from the second article: “According to reports most fans chose to pay nothing to download the album. However, it still generated more money before it was physically released (on December 31) than the total money generated by sales of the band's previous album, 2003's 'Hail To The Thief'.” [emphasis mine] 

And it all has an upside: although big artists may not make as much money (though they still might), more small artists will have an easier time getting exposure and becoming accessible to their target audiences. Artists that have shunned (or been shunned by) the mainstream like Tech N9ne or Slug (of Atmosphere fame) had to struggle through local shows and small-time bullshit for years before forming the specific—but very hardcore—fan bases that they have today. With the rise of Web 2.0, the next generation of independent music artists may not have to eat quite as much Ramen as their predecessors did. 

And that's a good thing. Really. It is. 

And beyond that, the internet has made it possible for fans to actually be the financial backers of the artists they adore through crowdfunding. As early as 1996, English rock band Marillion went online to ask fans for money so that they could fund a tour in the United States. What, you've never heard of Marillion? Neither had I, but they still managed to raise $60,000 and go on their US tour. 

All this happened before Kickstarter was even a thing. But now that it is, it's that much easier for artists to ask for and get the money they need to finance their creative endeavors. But what if you're not a very charitable person, and the thought of just giving away your hard-earned money makes you sick? What if you want something back for what you put in? Well, in 2006 the people over at Sellaband must have thought of this because they give you the option to invest in the artist, in return getting free downloads, swag, and maybe even a share of the profits. 

So, is there anything that a big record company can offer an artist that they can't get from people who actually like their music via the internet? 

Hip-hop artist Macklemore, who recently appeared on the cover of XXL as one of their 2012 Freshmen, has insisted in the past that he will never sign with a major label (and he hasn't, to my knowledge). Up until this year, he hadn't even gotten the kind of coverage on most hip-hop blogs (and definitely not on your TV or radio) as other up-and-comers like Kendrick Lamar or Mac Miller. And yet, internet buzz alone helped him to sell out shows all the fuck over the United States. Months before anyone put his ass in a magazine. 

And that's where the real future is. For those of you who buy into the whole “history is cyclical” thing, good news: live performances are coming back into prominence. Recorded music is losing its novelty, and the thrill of hearing a recording is not the same as it must have been when your grandfather broke the seal on his first phonograph record. We're used to that shit now, so for the real fans and the real lovers of music the complete experience comes from seeing the artist perform it live, whether they're as big as Jay-Z or just unsigned hype. 

And we're already seeing signs of success for small artists. There has been a serious explosion of new artists coming onto the scene, so many more than you could really keep track of, and hip-hop in particular has already been branching out into so many new sub-genres that you couldn't really keep track of them, either. The same thing happened to rock and roll: The Beatles and Nirvana were both great rock bands who sounded nothing at all like each other, but both came from the same roots and fall under the same sweeping term. The variety emerging from hip-hop will prove just as rich a ground for innovative new artists to explore the vast frontier that is new music. 

Some people are fighting against this brave new world of information sharing, clawing to keep things as exploitative and bureaucratized as they've been in recent decades, which they do by calling on the US government to shut down their uprising competitors (what exactly it is that places the World Wide Web under United States legal jurisdiction is a debate that has yet to be resolved. It's hard to come up with a compelling logical reply to “Because we said so”). Others embrace the new direction the industry (ugh, what an ugly word) is moving in, like the good (chaotic neutral?) people over at Anonymous, who have recently launched a (rather clunky) beta of AnonTune, what is intended to be a sort of social network combined with music streaming service (which cleverly dodges any legal problems by not hosting any of the copyrighted content, opting instead to make use of existing streaming services like SoundCloud or YouTube). 

Will AnonTune prevail or go the way of Napster and Megaupload? Is it on the verge of discovering the new business model or is it just more floundering through the dark? Time will tell. 

I for one am excited to see the direction that music moves in as the industry as we know it topples and the distance between artists and their fans continually shrinks. I don't see how so many people, even among the more established artists, have been fooled into thinking this is a bad thing. It's not. 

And let's face it, the big labels are kind of dicks anyway. Just ask the-artist-once-again-known-as-Prince, Lupe Fiasco, or any member of Slaughterhouse. 

And for bonus reading, here's an article in which a law professor explains why illegally downloading music cannot possibly constitute theft.