Close enough for rock 'n' roll: how the Internet makes the cheap, dirty and experimental possible

My latest Locus column, "Close Enough for Rock 'n' Roll," discusses the way that the net makes it possible to do something almost as good as its offline equivalent for a fraction of the cost, and how that changes everything:

In other words, rock 'n' roll is cheap, experimental and fluid, and devotes most of its energy into the production of music. Orchestral music is expensive, formal and majestic, but tithes a large portion of its effort to coordination and overheads and maintenance.

If the Internet has a motif, it is rock 'n' roll's Protestant Reformation thrashing against the orchestral One Church. Rock 'n' roll gets lots of wee kirks built in every hill and dale in which parishioners can find religion in their own ways; choral music erects majestic cathedrals that humble and amaze, but take three generations of laborers to build.

The interesting bit isn't what it costs to replicate some big, pre-Internet business or project.

The interesting bit is what it costs to do something half as well as some big, pre-Internet business or project.

Cory Doctorow: Close Enough for Rock 'n' Roll

(Image: Rock-n-Roll Adventure Kids, a Creative Commons Attribution photo from Invisible Hour's photostream)

• [Anony Mouse]

  The Interbuttz: Transforming ‘mediocre’ from perjorative to praise.

  I bet 9/10 Hipsters approve.

• [Anonymous]

  Metaphors! Haha, internet, you never cease to amaze me.
  More to the point, I disagree with Cory’s arguement. In the actual article he uses another metaphor to discribe how the internet gives us the ability to build 80% of Disneyland for 10% of the cost. Essentially the arguement is that the internet provides us less using even less capital. So you only get the metaphorical Mickey Mouse and Matterhorn without Goofy and the Space Mountain. You have to go to another themepark to get the latter two. I pose the question: what’s wrong with having all the fun in one place? What does wikipedia have (mistakes, anonymous credibility) that Encyclopedia Britannica Online doesn’t have (verifiable, peer reviewed credibility)?

• [norskamerikansk]

  Cory,
  I agree with the point of your text, but rock and roll has nothing to do with the protestant revolution. I hardly think protestants are “rock and roll”, you live in England, you’ve seen the repression, no? I also disagree that rock and roll is experimental since the form is at least 50 years old.

  • [mr_subjunctive]

    Either you’re being deadpanner than deadpan, or you have not heard of metaphors yet. (Metaphors are comparisons between things which are intended to show that one thing looks like, behaves like, or functions like another! They are very useful! Stay in school!) Either way, I’m not terribly amused.

  • [Anonymous]

    It’s called an analogy.

• [Anonymous]

  rock and roll may not be experimental now, but at the time it first showed up, what was it, if not experimental, based on the new hardware available in amplified and distorted musical instruments?

  i suspect each “revolution” have a explosion of experimentation, but then things will settle into more defined forms as time passes. This is basically how human society works, for better or for worse.

  hell, what we today call protestants where no single unified system, and still is not. the only thing binding them is the disregard of the pope…

• [greengestalt]

  I think one of the few good things about this recession/depression is it could spark a true “muzik Revolution” if the Meme is propagated properly…

  “Don’t Steal Muzik” but not for the RIAA reasons. A bank robber in his own way is a supporter of “The System” for he agrees with the banker the value of the money. Likewise, stealing music from the big companies ensures it’s value despite how little they appreciate it.

  However, modern tech gives anyone with a fraction of the previous investment a full music studio and lots of virtual instruments. The web gives them free distribution and if they can’t do an album cover, lots of artists can “For a song” so to speak.

  What is needed to change the music industry, or rather kill it, is go back to supporting individual artists. Directly tip or buy their work online. Divy up an existing entertainment budget and spend it on individual artists and avoid “major record labels”. Now, we do have a soft spot for ones we grew up (1) with that are entrenched with the (2) companies, those artists should get a donation too, but directly to their ‘fan’ address but of course no “I downloaded your music” admission, cause their lawyers read those. But “I love your music, here’s a donation…”

  We can turn around the Music industry, turning it into glorious anarchy of individual voices that come and go and re-emerge and many ‘obscure’ voices having a small part in it. The big companies have taken up too much money and controlled the gateway too long. Their corruption is their own undoing and they are too entrenched in their rich elite world to know what their basic function is; A form of “Busking” or playing on the street.

  If you toss $1, $5 into the case of a person playing an instrument on the street corner. If you tip a Mime (hey, I like ‘em!) If you tip a beat poet in the coffeshop… Well, you pay them far more than if they were an “Established Pro” and you bought their $18.99 CD. The average cut, I’ve read, is 5 cents or nothing. By avoiding corporate rock and supporting them directly, you can help change the face of music and many other forms of entertainment.

  1. I won’t promo types of music I like here, I’m keeping this neutral.
  2. Lots of rockers are entrenched in contracts they had to sign to get anywhere given the previous music monopoly of the recording industry. Even, I’m sure, MP3 online sales will go to their companies mostly.

  • [Tynam]

    Everything greengestalt said. I don’t pirate music from the big labels, for the same reason I don’t buy music from the big labels: I don’t want to support these atrocious, lying bastards. They don’t want me to listen to their music? OK, I won’t. Plenty of bands around that both (a) have talent and (b) really want my custom.

    (There’re a couple of bands that are stuck with major label distribution that I love so much, I make an exception for them. Then I go give more money to ORG until the guilt fades.)

• [thequickbrownfox]

  You can’t really “do” rock’n'roll the way you suggest it.

  Modern forms of Pop music, which means popular in the usual sense and not the vacuous YouTube sensation-of-the-day moment, come about from highly informed and skilled practitioners.

  See how Dire Straits and Suzanne Vega crashed into Big Music long before the internet.

  You can’t fake it in this market.

  Listen here for the latest evolving Indie sounds

  http://www.fbiradio.com/content.php/753.html

• [Anonymous]

  Guns ‘n’ Roses spent over a decade and $13 million recording Chinese Democracy. I believe that makes it the most expensive music production of all time. Most rock music today is painstakingly layered, processed, and “produced” to within an inch of its life. It’s actually the range of digital manipulation tools available today that makes this even possible. It was a much less involved process when, say, The Beatles or Led Zeppelin were recording.

  By contrast recording an orchestra is relatively straightforward. Not quite as simple as lining up a bunch of musicians and hitting “record” but nearly so.

• [johnlancia]

  I don’t think you guys are getting the whole metaphor thing here.
  Maybe I’m missing some kind of troll that is going on.

• [kenfar]

  Orchestras are harmed by changing tastes and increasing labor costs – not technology. Likewise, big bands were mostly replaced by small jazz combos. Again, not due to technology but costs.

  Rock and roll still requires years of practice with hundreds if not thousands of dollars of gear before musicians are typically ready to attract audiences.

  Now, recording is much cheaper (but still not free). What’s really changed is fan collaboration. But that’s all.