Bonnaroo: 4th and final day, just when we were starting to fit in

Our neighbors to the right.

Our neighbors to the left. Ken and Joanna drove down from Toronto, and saved our lives by letting us lounge under their canopy.

Nick says, "always bring a towel!"

Yep, it's the Maytag repair man.

Me with a Huntsvile Times umbrella. Notice that no one is looking at me.

Ralph Stanley and the Clinch Mountain Boys. The crowd was exceptionally reverent. They wouldn't let poor Ralph get off stage.

Ralph Stanley fans.

The shirt says, "Will drop pants for ticket." Unfortunately I didn't get a picture of the guy with the shirt that says, "Golf can go fuck itself."

This girl painted herself green. Not sure why.

Nick has a meeting of the minds with Towely.

The White Stripes, a husband and wife duo that somehow sounds like Led Zeppelin. It was the last band we saw.

No idea.

Bonnaroo: 3rd day, The Police

Max, Nick, and Sting. Or, as Zappa used to call him, Mr. Sting.

Max, Nick, and me. Yes, I'm very happy to see Mr. Sting, and Stuart Copeland and Andy Summers. Sting was in top form, if a little perfunctory, and Copeland had about 100 cymbals at his disposal. But for some reason they ended early. Probably because Sting realized that he was singing to a bunch of 20 somethings who barely recognized Roxanne. Of the 18 songs performed, the most memorable were The Bed's Too Big Without You and Wrapped Around Your Finger. At least I think I remember that. Despite the short set it was still the highlight of the weekend for me. What say you, Max?

Of the 20 or so other bands I saw, I thought the best, most surprising performances were by Rodrigo y Gabriela, Kings of Leon, Hot Chip, Railroad Earth, Xavier Rudd, Regina Spektor, and Galactic.

Bonnaroo: 2nd night, Centeroo fountain, Tool light show, etc.

Entering Bonnaroo

Nick surveys the 80,000.

Learning economics from The Beatles, lesson 3

Why did The Beatles, and so many other great musicians, come along in the 1960s? I think the answer lies primarily in technology, which advanced at an unprecedented rate in the post-war period. The electric guitar was still an unproven instrument, until Jimi Hendrix came along. Many other supply side technologies came to revolutionize the music business, e.g. the advent of the transistor lead to higher quality studio mixing and recording equipment and techniques. Likewise, on the demand side, advances in radio, TV, and the stereo LP facilitated a thick market in music. The spread of the English language also can't be ignored, and The Beatles experienced this as both a cause and effect of their success.

As with any technology, these were adopted at differing rates. The early adopters were mainly baby boomers in the West. Thus, it is no coincidence that The Beatles came from what was once the most economically advanced country in the world. And they weren't alone. Remember the British invasion? Here is a list showing the top music exporters in 1997. Note that it looks a lot like a list of today's richest countries (not per capita, just total size in GDP). Or the richest in 1970. (The only exception is North Korea coming in at #30 on the music list. Maybe Curtis can explain that one.)

The lesson is that change implies diversity. In this case, technological change made for a diversity of musical output, both in quality and quantity. If you want to be uncharitable, The Beatles can be seen as monopolists who used technology as a barrier to entry, just as the "robber-barons" did a century ago in the fast-changing oil and railroad industries. But we are not uncharitable with musicians, and we shouldn't be with other productive enterprises.

So, from this and the previous lesson we see that prosperity, change, and diversity all go hand-in-hand. Think about that the next time your local politician recommends stabilizing prices, or setting a minimum wage, or capping CEO salaries. Insisting on equality of outcomes means the destruction of diversity, and with it prosperity. And when the State enforces it through coercion, we have lost our liberty as well.

Addendum: Tyler's latest NY Times article covers much the same ground, and the next lesson on status and culture. This is what happens when you read someone's blog for 3 years. And take his macro and industrial organization classes.

Correction: Though there were plenty of good musicians in the 1960s, The Beatles were and are singularly huge, selling more than 4 times as many albums as #2, Simon and Garfunkel. No other decade is like that, having one completely dominant player. Maybe Elvis in the 1950s, but he recorded only about 20% of his albums then. Roughly 1/3 of his biggest hits were in the 1960s. And The Beatles soon swamped him. Here is an attempt to put together world-wide record sales. Here is the more systematic RIAA data, which I've put in a chart shown below. In the first tier, on the left, it shows the top artist in each of 5 decades. Elvis is the blue bar, The Beatles are light purple, Led Zeppelin is yellow, Billy Joel is green, and Garth Brooks is dark purple. Yes, popular music has really gone down hill. (Thanks to Jason for the comments which made me do the research.)

Learning economics from The Beatles, lesson 2

The Beatles were most adept at ripping off various styles, from Buddy Holly to Bob Dylan to Harry Nilsson to you name it. Without these influences, The Beatles would be boring and unremarkable.

In the same way, the most successful economies have copied other successful economies. For instance, Scotland in the 17th century was among the poorest backwaters of Europe. In 1707 it unified with England and slowly adopted the English language. By 1800 Scotland was among the richest countries in Europe and a major center of the Enlightenment.

This is how globalization works. We trade with each other, we learn from each other, we copy each other, we recombine in unique ways, and we prosper as a result. We don't all become the same, as prosperity implies constant change in unpredictable ways. The Beatles didn't become mere copies, they became something entirely unique.

Here is the first lesson.

Learning economics from The Beatles

So I just got Anthology 3, and can't believe how these guys still captivate me. I figure you can learn all of economics by thinking about The Beatles. Here's the first installment, and feel free to offer your own lessons.

Lesson 1: What are the odds that 4, or 3, or even 2 musical geniuses would find themselves together in a small town? Answer: slim to none. It is more likely that one genius inspired the rest to raise their level of performance. Probably John Lennon was the original genius, but soon the others came to match his talent, especially the young and formative George Harrison. Even George's final album, 32 years after the break up, is pretty outstanding. This is how human innovation works, largely through peer effects. And this is why so much of human accomplishment has occurred in the West.

Addendum: To clarify, the mechanism at work here is not merely hero worship, but rather peer effects, or more precisely, acculturation, or self-acculturation, as Tyler has called it. That is, John inspired George, who inspired John. John need not be a genius for the group to produce great music. In fact, the first few albums are not great, that only happened later, which suggests acculturation as opposed to genius.

Bossa

A certain someone just reminded me I should spend more time at HR-57. I forgot to tell certain someone that Bossa Lounge is another excellent place for jazz, and you can find me there usually on Sunday nights for the late show. I knew this blog was good for something. Truly, Thad Wilson and the Young Lions are phenomenal, especially their drummer, Quincy Phillips, who you have to see to believe.

Addendum: Another new favorite haunt, though more bird music than jazz: the Botanical Gardens. It's perfect in the winter. I learned that the proper name for snake plant is "mother-in-law's tongue."