Is the name of a social movement whose political line is close to anti-globalization but which prefers to present itself as supporting the international integration of globalization while urging that values of democracy, economic justice, environmental protection, and human rights be put ahead of purely economic concerns.

I really believe this is the crux of the issue that globalization critics on the liberal side of the fence miss. (please pay attention). Democracy, economic justice, environmental protection and human rights are all values that arise from a certain level of prosperity. The model that proposes leading with these values first is a dimension of Liberal Fascism.

If you want an organic process where these values emerge internally and authentically from a developing people, they must have an economic prosperity that triggers these from within. To be prosperous, a people must be educated, being educated, they develop enlightened self-interest, having this, social movements emerge that make repression intolerable.

It just simply doesn't work the other way around. I don't even know what the other way around is. There is no populist alternative that has demonstrated an ability to sow these values into the fabric of a people from the grass-roots. When a people are richer, they tend to care about the environment. You cannot force people to care about the environment. It cannot be imposed, it can only be triggered through a standard of living that awakes this faculty. Thus, the economic must lead, as harrowing as that sounds.

I genuinely empathize with the concerns of people that feel this way, I just dis-respectfully disagree. I believe they commit the same sin on the other side of the coin as the people they hate most: instead of imposing 1st world economic policies on 3rd world conditions (a la Shock Doctrine), they impose 1st world values on 3rd world conditions (perhaps better understood using Maslow's hierarchy: one can't self-actualize when in survival mode).

Of course, much of it is about specifying what we mean by "geek." Which isn't easy for someone used to looking at culture's near-chaotic intricacy and intricacies. At this point, I'm reluctant to define too clearly what I mean by "geek" because some people (self-professed geeks, especially) are such quick nitpickers that anything I say about the term is countered by more authorized definitions. I even expect comments to this blog entry to focus on how inaccurate my perception of geeks is, regardless of any other point I make.

Ah, well...

My intention isn't to stereotype a group of people. And I don't want to generalize. I just try to describe a specific situation which I find very interesting. In and of itself, the term "geek" carries a lot of baggage, much of which is problematic for anyone who is trying to understand an important part of the world in which we all live. But the term is remarkably useful as a way to package an ethos, a style, a perspective, an approach, a worldview, a personality type. Among those who could be called "geeks" are very diverse people. There might not even a single set of criteria to define who should legitimately be called a "geek." But "geekness" is now a reference for some actions, behaviors, markets, and even language varieties. Describing "geeks" as a group makes some sense, even if some people get very sensitive about the ways geeks are described.

For the record, I don't really consider myself a geek. At the same time, I do enjoy geekness and I consider myself geek-friendly. It's just that I'm not an actual insider to the geek coterie.

Thinking demographically has some advantages in terms of simplification. Simple is reassuring, especially in geek culture. So, looking at geek demographics on a broad scale...

First, the upper demographic limit for geekery. At the extreme, the Whole Wide World. What's geeky about The World?

Number of things, actually. Especially in terms of some key technologies. Those technologies some people call "the tech world." Consumer electronics, digital gadgets, computers...

An obvious tech factor for the upper limit of geekness is the 'Net. The Internet is now mainstream. Not that everyone, everywhere truly lives online but the 'Net is having a tremendous impact on the world as a whole. And Internet penetration is shaping up, in diverse parts of the world. This type of effect goes well with a certain type of "low-level geekness." Along with widespread online communication, a certain approach to the world has become more prominent. A techno-enthusiastic and troubleshooting approach I often associate with engineering. Not that all engineers uses this type of approach or that everyone who uses this type of approach is an engineer. But, in my mind, it's an "engineering worldview" similar to an updated set of mechanistic metaphors.

Another obvious example of widespread geek-friendly technology is the cellphone. Obvious because extremely widespread (apparently, close to half of the human population of the planet is cellphoned). Yet, cellphones are the geekiest technology item available. What makes them geeky, in my eyes, is the way they're embedded in a specific social dynamic emphasizing efficiency, mobility, and "always-on connectivity" along with work/life, group/individual, and public/private dichotomies.

The world's geekiness can also be observed through other lenses, more concerned with the politic and the social drive of human behavior. Meritocracies, relatively non-judgemental ethics, post-national democracies, neo-liberal libertarianism, neo-Darwinian progress-mindedness, networked identities... Figures on populations "affected" by these geeky dimensions of socio-political life are hard to come by and it's difficult to tell apart these elements from simple "Westernization." But it's easy to conceive of a geeky version of the world in which all of these elements are linked. In a way, it's as if the world were dominated by geekdom.

Which brings me to the lower demographic limit for geekiness: How many "true geeks" are there? What' are the figures for the "alpha geek" population?

My honest guesstimate? Five to ten million worldwide, concentrated in a relatively small number of urban areas in North America and Eurasia. I base this range on a number of hunches I got throughout the years. In fact, my impression is that there are about two million people in (or "oriented toward") the United States who come close enough to the geek stereotype to qualify as "alpha geeks." Haven't looked at academic literature on the subject but judging from numbers of early adopters in "geeky tech," looking at FLOSS movements, thinking about desktop Linux, listening to the "tech news" I don't think this figure is so far off. On top of these U.S. geeks are "worldwide geeks" who are much harder to count. Especially since geekness itself is a culture-specific concept. But, for some reason, I get the impression that those outside the United States who would be prototypical geeks number something like five million people, plus or minus two million.

All this surely sounds specious. In fact, I'm so not a quant dude, I really don't care about the exact figure. But my feeling, here, is that this ultra-geeky population is probably comparable to a large metropolitan area.

Of course, geeks are dispersed throughout the world. Though there are "geek meccas" like Bangalore and the San Francisco Bay Area, geeks are often modern cosmopolitans. They are typically not "of a place" and they navigate through technology institutions rather than through native locales. Thanks to telecommuting, some geeks adopt a glocal lifestyle making connections outside of their local spheres yet constructing local realities, at least in their minds. In some cases, übergeeks are resolute loners who consciously try to avoid being tied to local circles.

Thanks in part to the "tech industry" connections of geek society, geek-friendly regions compete with one another on the world stage.

Scattered geeks have an impact on local communities and this impact can be disproportionately large in comparison to the size of the geek population.

...

Started this post last week, after listening to Leo Laporte's  TWiT "netcast." 

The TWiT Netcast Network with Leo Laporte

 ...

I wanted to finish this post but never got a round tuit. I wanted to connect this post with a few things about the connection between "geek culture" in the computer/tech industry and the "craft beer" and "coffee geek" movements. There was also the obvious personal connection to the subject. I'm now a decent ethnographic insider-outsider to geek culture. Despite (thanks to) the fact that, as a comment-spammer was just saying, I'm such a n00b.

Not to mention that I wanted to expand upon JoCo's career, attitude, and character (discussed during the TWiT podcast). And that was before I learned that JoCo himself was coming to Austin during but not through the expensive South by Southwest film/music/interactive festivals.

If I don't stop myself, I even get the urge to talk about the politics of geek groups, especially in terms of idealism. 

This thoughtful blogpost questioning the usefulness of the TED conference makes me want to push the "publish" button, even though this post isn't ready. My comments about TED aren't too dissimilar to many of the things which have appeared in the past couple of days. But I was going to focus on the groupthink, post-Weberian neo-liberalism, Well/Wired/GBN links, techy humanitarianism, etc.

Ah, well... 

Guess I should just RERO it and hope for the best. Maybe I'll be able to leave those topics behind. RSN. 

TBC. 

But now, I feel optimistic. Not about the OLPC project. But because that project is enabling something important.

For instance, Sherman Dorn wrote a very thoughtful and insightful blog post about the project:

Education Policy Blog: OLPC skepticism/hope

In Dorn's post, I notice something that I find is missing from much discussion on the relationships between the United States and the rest of World: cultural awareness. Chances are that Dorn didn't wait for the OLPC project to start before he became culturally aware himself. But I quite enjoy this type of thoughtful and critical discourse saying "Hey! Maybe we should talk to people to whom we want to sell massive numbers of computers before we start imposing our views on them..." Makes simple business sense but it's also really reassuring to any anthropologist.

Also reassuring is this comment by CNET blogger Tom Krazit:

Negroponte seems to think that because he's running a nonprofit with a "mission," he's entitled to a lock on the developing world and that the XO laptop is the only thing that can bridge the digital divide. That, of course, is preposterous; competition between firms is what improves products and brings down costs over time, and to expect Intel and other companies to just pass on burgeoning demand for computers in developing countries is pretty naive.

I had been waiting for statements like these. Not that I share this conception of the world apparently based on the Invisible Hand theory. But, at least, Krazit is voicing concerns about Negroponte's approach.

Similarly reassuring is the fact that some technology companies involved in OLPC-like projects are open to input from anthropologists:

To see real growth in the coming decades, Intel, AMD, and the rest of the semi industry must focus on markets where an iPhone would cost a month's income, and then on markets where it would cost a year's income. This is the reality behind Intel's and AMD's interest in the device category that OLPC represents. It's the reason why Intel has teams of anthropologists running around rural China, and why AMD launched its 50x15 plan.

I don't personally see anthropology's primary role as a method to sell more chips but it's fun to see anthropological insight gain popularity in the (small but influential) world of global trade.
More reassuring is the November 15 Joy of Tech comic about the potential effects of the OLPC's XO computer.

As an africanist, I personally find that comic surprisingly insightful. And it does allude to an important set of issues relating to Globalization.
So, in part thanks to the OLPC project, people are talking about Globalization, hegemony, and imperialism in a rather thoughtful fashion.

The basic issue I had with the OLPC does have to do with what Dorn describes:

There are two lines of criticism that overlap. One relies on the history of education (and the history and sociology of technology), while the other from the world of comparative education. In both cases, the point is similar: technology does not exist outside a social and institutional context.

I wouldn't have put it this way, but it's the same idea. We're talking about technologists who are oblivious to the "human dimensions" of technology. This problem is at the center of Negroponte's and other OLPC participants' personal attitudes. We could also call their attitudes "messianic." But the basic problem was that participants failed to understand that there is more to solving human issues than finding the right technology.

Now, Negroponte keeps saying that his pet project is not a technology project or a research project. Instead, he calls it either a "humanitarian effort" or an "education project." Fair enough... But the way the project seems to work does make it look a lot more like a typical engineering research project than like a project based on a thorough understanding of educational and humanitarian issues. Simply put, the OLPC project uses a "troubleshooting" approach to solve what is perceived as a non-ideal situation. A bit like Engineers Without Borders or Geekcorps, but with less cultural awareness and with explicit ulterior motives.

Speaking of ulterior motives and going back to the Invisible Hand. OLPC enthusiasts and critics alike often seem to share a worldview focused on some form of economic liberalism. The basic idea is to push people in GDP-poor countries into the model of market economy with which these people are most familiar and/or comfortable (free trade, privatization, export-centric development...). Obviously, these are connected to ideas about Nation-States and liberal democracy. By buying computers, ministers of education in GDP-poor countries will help their constituencies take a more active place in the World System, which will allow for more free trade and better access to these countries' exports. By using these computers, children will learn how to be part of the same economic system as the one which dominates most post-industrial societies.

AFAICT, this neoliberal (and neoconservative) economic model is precisely what altermondialists are trying to fight. While I don't necessarily wholeheartedly subscribe to the complete rejection of neoliberalism typical of most alter-globalization movements, I do find it essential to address such issues as Globalization models before setting forth missionary projects for education abroad.

Now, back to optimism. Maybe Negroponte doesn't, in fact, deserve a Nobel Prize, but he did do something important: make people think about possibilities in the connections between technology, education, and (economic) development. (Comparisons with the iPhone could be interesting.)

Negroponte clearly knows a lot about technology and his Media Lab has been quite successful in the late 1990s. In 1995, I saw Negroponte give a fairly interesting presentation at Lausanne's polytechnic institute. Even then, Negroponte's neoliberal bias was apparent (and getting on the nerves of some of the people present). But there was some motivational dimension to the "digital revolution" which seemed to be taking place at the time and Negroponte's technological enthusiasm was well-placed.

I used to read Negroponte's back-page column in Wired magazine with some interest. In fact, reading some issues of Wired has had an impact on me. For instance, attempts at GBN-like scenario-building have often reminded me of Peter Schwartz's (in)famous Long Boom article in the July 1997 issue of that magazine. That same publication is also where I first learned about the concept of "leapfrog effect" (IIRC, through an article by GBNer John Perry Barlow, but Negroponte had already been using the term). I tend to see a clear connection between the OLPC and the potential effects of "information wealth."

To be honest, I have been on the whole fairly enthusiastic in terms of the potentials for leapfrog effects in different parts of the world. Not that I think that technology will "save the world" in terms of economic development or in terms of ecological issues. But I do think that some tools can be embedded in interesting social changes, some of which I do find desirable.

Now, to be even more honest, my enthusiasm for the technological dimensions of social changes does lead me to some rather naïve ideas about what might happen in this world. But naïveté can be a strength. At least, if we keep thinking about implications of change and don't fall into the trap of basic utopianism.

In his recent blogpost on the OLPC, Sherman Dorn mentioned my own post where I commented on the potential for a cellphone-based OLPC-like project. I do tend to mention cellphones a fair bit in these contexts. Not because I prefer cellphones to laptops but because cellphones are already embedded in important social changes. One important principle from ethnography and anthropology is to observe and describe a given context before implementing wide-ranging measures. My hunch is that OLPC participants might have decided to focus their efforts on phone-based devices instead of laptops if they had observed what had already been going on, around the world. What's funny is that, IIRC, many techno-enthusiastic neoliberals had already been noticing the trend toward cellphone use long before the OLPC project even got started.

All told, I do have high hopes for a world allowing thoughtful discussion of global relations beyond the simplistic technological, economical, and political issues which seem to overshadow the truly human dimensions of social change.

Yes, call me naïve.

On the other hand, I certainly salute initiatives which combine ethical values with self-empowerment, sustainable development, alter-globalization, sound economic principles, and pure, plain fun. I'm not an activist myself but I support and admire those who have the convictions of their strength.

It's been going on for years but I've been thinking more about it recently. Télé-Québec (a public television station whose motto is «L'esprit ouvert», "An Open Mind") has been running different series under the «Rebut Global» moniker. These series are about groups of people who renovate buildings and houses using ethical principles. A kind of ethical version of a typical home improvement show.

The name is a pun on «Manifeste du refus global» a 1948 manifesto by Quebec artists and intellectuals which has had a lasting impact on Quebec society and was clearly part of the background for important social changes in Quebec, such as the Quiet Revolution.

«Rebut Global» ("Global Waste") has the appropriate connotations, IMHO. The show itself has a "Reality Show" feel to it, but is part of what we might see as "the new hippie culture: the one which actually works." Though the show is produced by a television station, it's representative of a very dynamic grassroots movement in Quebec society, especially among younger people. To be opinionated about it: activism done right.

My reason for thinking about all of this now? Well, apart from my desire to really reintegrate Quebec society, I was just listening to an Eat Feed episode on "Eating and Drinking to Save the World." Apart from my devotion to food, drinks, and ethical hedonism, that podcast episode titillated my sensitivity to ethical construction through an interview with Wildheart Gardens' Christopher Schein about Permaculture. Of course, the connection with Anthropik's podcast episode on permaculture is even stronger, but my thinking about Quebec culture these days led me to think about Rebut Global first.

BTW, Télé-Québec has several cool, original shows and has had an interesting history.  It was originally charted as, and remains dedicated to its mission as, an educational and cultural medium. Those of us, French-Canadians, who grew up in Quebec in the late 1970s and 1980s have clearly been influenced by the Passe-Partout children show, which ran on Télé-Québec for a number of years. I've also been quite impressed with the quality of shows like Beau et chaud, hosted by Normand Brathwaite and others. To revel in my nostalgia even further, I must say that Beau et chaud was truly one of the most musician-savvy variety shows ever, along with Sessions at West 54th Street and David Sanborn's Night Music. Apart from totally awesome music, Beau et chaud also served as a platform for artists, creators, activists, intellectual, and "cultural personalities" in many other fields, including circus arts and local politics.

Funnily enough, the first Google result for "David Byrne television" (was looking for the full name of Sessions) is a journal entry by Byrne about Montreal television! Guess I'm not the only one making some associations between Byrne and Quebec culture. If I understand the tone of his journal entry, Byrne was somewhat surprised by Quebec television's candor. I think he really grasped something fundamental about Quebec culture. Man, would I love chatting with him about Quebec!

While it is significantly different from Brathwaite's earlier show, the currently running Belle et Bum variety show (also on TQc and shot very close to my place) comes directly from the Beau et chaud mold and has some striking similarities with the original. Perhaps because I knew many of the musicians who played there, I much preferred Beau et chaud to the current incarnation, but Belle et bum occasionally has very interesting guests.

For instance, last night, they had a singer who goes by the name "Lara" (I believe her last name is Huldi but I can't access her webpage). She's half-Kiwi as well as a fellow half-Swiss. So maybe I paid more attention to her out of patriotism («La Suisse est belle. Ah comme il faut la chérir. Sachons pour elle. Vivre et mourir.»). She sings Bosnian traditional music as well as some songs in Spanish and in French. Her voice reminds me quite a bit of that of Moira Smiley and other members of the unfortunately defunct a cappella group Vida.

TQc is still fulfilling its mission of fostering Quebec culture. For those who wonder, its political bent is probably best described as "left of centre" anti-nationalist sovereignist. For those who know Quebec politics, this all make sense. (IMHO, those who misread Quebec politics probably assume that TQc is "nationalist," probably using a definition of "nationalism" distinct from the one typically used in political science.)

My current favourite show on TQc is Méchant contraste. In some ways, it's your typical "cultural show," like ZeD used to be. But it's also very political and strikes what I feel is the ideal balance between serious issues and "entertainment value." It's quite "edgy" in an honest way and, again, represents a significant segment of Quebec youth culture.

Unfortunately for those who don't understand the language, all of Télé-Québec's content is in French, sometimes in Vernacular Quebec French. I'm sure people will say that Télé-Québec is just the local equivalent of other public television stations elsewhere. (Go ahead, say it!) But for those who want to understand Quebec culture, you could do worse than to watch a Télé-Québec for a few minutes.
I don't watch television much but some of these TQc show give me another reason to have a tv set than watching DVDs.

Who says Africans lack business acumen?

(Actually, such methods of empowerment are quite common, throughout Africa. And many Africans are rightfully proud of being able to manage by themselves. When will people from OECD "nations" get this?)

Starting up with my own comments about Yu Koyo Peya and Jared Diamond's Collapse. It's no secret that Diamond's approach often clashes with the anthropological tendency toward critical thinking. But still...
From The Matrix, Agent Smith saying that humans are a disease. The YKP on-screen message that "civilization" (however defined) is the disease. A further claim could be that a specific civilization is a disease. Fun to think about. Where does it lead us, exactly? And, really, what do we mean by "civilization" in those cases? State-level "democracy" based on the illusion of national identity and individual autonomy, and motivated by market economy? And that's all so important why, exactly? After all, there are alternatives of different types and in different places...

Haven't read Diamond's books but it's quite likely that Collapse in fact describes the decline of a specific social model. Actually, to a Québécois, the recent tribute to Rémy Girard's career makes the analogy even more salient. Some have asked what year the U.S. were stuck in. Some date between 410 and 476 would be many people's guess. But it could be later.

It might be the end of Occidentalism. Or, simply, perceived radical changes based on a series of significant events.

It reminds me of a well-known Swiss novel and a movie made about it. English-speakers would likely think of Chicken Little. Again, windmills and shelters.
Many events are connected to these times. From the end of the Cold War to Hurricane Katrina. From a climate of terror and paranoia to the rise of Chindia. From the Washington Consensus to notions of terrorists and freedom fighters,

There's no conspiracy. Just a bunch of loosely linked social changes on a rather large but still very limited stage.
What are we to do?

Look further than the end of our collective nose?

There's something happening here. Coffee's a global commodity. One of the most traded ones, in fact. Huge industry. Some key players (Nestlé, Sara Lee, Kraft, and Procter & Gamble). And a turn, especially in the U.S., toward the crafty side of things.

Similarly, beer's a global phenomenon. Though more limited than coffee, it's still pretty big. Some key players (InBev, SABMiller, Anheuser-Busch, Heineken). And, in the U.S. again, a "Craft Brewing Revolution" is changing the perception of beer.

In music and globalization. Music is seen as a commodity. It's a smallish industry (about 32G$, of which 4G$ is made through ringtones). Some key players (Sony-BMG, Universal Warner, EMI). And a movement toward music as craft? Well, in some ways.

All of these are typical of industrial conglomerates and counter-movements to "take back the game." What's specific? These happen to be some of my key interests! ;-)

The Portafilter inspiration came in a discussion about competition. For the "smaller" players (baristas and café owners; craft brewers and brewpub owners; musicians and venue owners), competition isn't that much of an issue. For the key players, there might not be so many issues with competition in actual fact (apart from anti-trust suits) even though industries are supposed to work on the drive of competition. There is, though, an issue of competition between the two levels. For instance, specialty coffee has become quite prominent in the marketplace and is probably gaining ground. Craft beer is in fact gaining a lot of ground on "macro-breweries." And the record industry has had a hard time understanding what's going on with actual music.

The spark here is the Local. Global industries perceived at the local level. A kind of counter-balance to Globalization. Localization? Transnationalization? Regionalization? Alter-Globalization?

It's not necessarily activism. And it's not necessarily anti- anything. Clearly, some entities involved are corporate and there's probably a continuum between the local-level players and the Global key players. But thinking about the local dimension of global phenomena. Again, the ugly word, glocal.

With coffee, for instance, location is quite interesting. Coffee is mostly produced in what Wallerstein would call Periphery and Semi-Periphery. Production, at least in specialty coffee, is often conceived in terms of country of origin (as if national boundaries mattered for taste). Coffee is mostly consumed in the Core and in the wealthier parts of the Semi-Periphery. And, quite importantly, a huge part of the taste of coffee depends on extreme freshness. Allegedly, an overwhelming majority of an espresso's aromas disappear within a very few minutes after being brewed, ground coffee loses most of it's flavour and aroma within 15 minutes, roasted coffee beans become stale very quickly ten days after roast, etc. In terms of aroma and flavour, coffee (espresso especially) needs to be consumed extremely fresh. Green coffee beans, however, may be kept for quite a while and are relatively easy to ship and store. In fact, the process of going from the coffee berry to the dry green coffee bean can be relatively long and may even involve some fermentation.
So green coffee beans can be and are produced far away from the place where they are used to make liquid coffee, but the transformation process of getting from the green bean to liquid coffee (roasting, grinding, brewing...) needs to be done as close as possible to the place where the coffee is consumed. In terms of taste (flavour and aroma), a local café has a very clear justification. Of course, cafés are also social spaces but if one is to think of homeroasting and espresso making at home, a local distributor of green coffee beans is the equivalent of the café, in terms of taste.

A big part of what is changing the coffee world, apart from new techniques and knowledge, is fair-trade coffee. Fair trade, as a concept, is quite simple yet rather interesting for those who want to see Globalization happen from the ground up. Part grassroots movement, part transnational organization, part business model. Some of the key players in the coffee industry are taking notice (and are trying to say they're using the fair trade model). But a large part of this move toward fair-trade coffee is happening on the local level, both in terms of production (local and independent coffee growers) and in terms of consumption (local green coffee importers). In some cases, the relationships between production and consumption are the basis of cooperatives linking specific coffee producers with specific cafés and coffee importers. Sure, global players also have business partnerships with specific producers. One difference, though, is the notion that trade should be balanced (fairly) between members of the cooperatives. Another big difference is the local level. Fair-trade coffee is as much about "Think Global, Act Local" as many other things.

Including beer! Craft beer is explicitly about "Think Global, Drink Local" (at least, the Pumphouse Brewery in Moncton, NB, had that as their motto a few years ago). Or, in other words, "Support Your Local Brewer." Most beers, unlike most wines, are best consumed fresh. Not as extremely fresh as coffee. But fresh nonetheless. The reason beer is different from wine is mostly the degree of alcohol coupled with the influence of oxidation. Still, the concept of drinking local has to do with drinking tasty fresh beer.

Unlike green coffee beans, barley and other grains used in beer are produced in the same Core countries where much beer is consumed. Like green coffee beans but unlike roasted coffee, malted grain and hop flowers are relatively easy to store and ship. So there could technically be the same type of transnational distribution as in fair-trade coffee for two of the basic ingredients in beer, but beer can be done completely locally. Difficult to draw any conclusion about this distinction, but it's interesting to keep in mind.

Now, a local brewpub or microbrewery has some of the same characteristics as a local café or coffee importer. In fact, the markets may be fairly similar and there has been some collaborations between local coffee roasters and local beer brewers.

Connections between beer and coffee are easy. Now, music.

Contrary to either coffee or beer, music isn't really a commodity in the sense of something people can buy. There are music products that are sold and bought, such as sound recordings, music videos, band-related merchandise, and music partitions. But the music isn't sold and/or consumed the same way a cup of espresso or a pint of beer might be. A huge difference is that a single person or 10 000 people may listen to the same music without changing the nature of the music while 10 000 people drinking from the same cup of espresso would need to take very little sips. ;-)

This distinction is extremely important, of course. Yet the issue of the local bands fighting back the global music industry takes on some similar characteristics. Even the concept of "fair trade" may be applied to music. And there's the issue of freshness.

Music doesn't need to "go stale," at least in recorded form. At the same time, music performance is time-sensitive: it occurs in a specific moment and is perceived through time. Through a move from music performance (as process) to music recording (as product), comes a wide gap between people who make music and people who listen to music. The disconnect between music production and consumption has been called "schizophonia" by Canadian composer R. Murray Schafer. It has a lot of impacts on the way music is conceived on a global scale. Some people talk about the financial, legal, ethical, and social issues around the movement of music performed by members of the Semi-Periphery and Periphery to the Core. There can easily be a notion, for some people, of music being "stolen" from its "rightful owner" (even though the "owner" and "thief" but keep the music after the "theft"). These issues can get some people started... ;-)

Yet there's another issues that might be closer to beer and coffee. What happens with music locally? What happens with music globally? Who's involved? What are the relationships between those involved?

A number of things are happening that might be similar to what's happening with coffee and beer. People in different parts of the world are now able to hear and listen to music coming from any other place in the world. While it might not be a huge thing for the recording industry's point of view, the fact is that local performers from some parts of the world are bringing their music to other places. Sometimes, it's a process of broadening the listenership of the music to the "global sphere." More often, however, those performers are never known very widely but may be known in a local sphere in which they're working. In terms of distribution, it's quite easy to have music recordings (especially as sound files) travel the world. But in terms of musical activities, a lot happens at the local level. In some musical scenes, such as Montreal's "World Music" scene(s), contacts among performers produces something unique. A new taste.

And this is where coffee and beer come again. Cafés and bars are often venues for local performers. A solid and dynamic local scene can be more beneficial for a performer than the whimsical and stale "global market" of the record industry. Many people, for instance members of jam bands, are focusing on direct contact between performers and audiences. And what comes out of that can be as pleasing and even life-changing as any well-crafted espresso or beer. When the three things come together, pure magic! :-)

And that's just on the public side of thing. Making music, beer, or espresso at home is much more satisfying!