Jan
27
2006Web 2.0 and Jazz
27
2006
There’s a major backlash going on towards all that is known as “Web 2.0″. I don’t really buy into it. Sure it may be a poorly-defined, badly-named phenomenon, but there is definitely something different and real going on. And the way I see it, the fact that the Web 2.0 “brand” encompasses a lot of seemingly unrelated characteristics (”Site X uses AJAX, has a blog, and uses rounded corners”) is precisely what makes it interesting.
In a way, I think that Web 2.0 is to the web what jazz is to music. Jazz isn’t jazz strictly because of how the notes are lined up. Jazz is jazz because of the musical arrangements, because the musicians call each other “cats”, and because afficionados like to drink martinis. I’m stereotyping here, but my point is that Web 2.0 is about a culture, not about exactly what the code does. And a genuine culture it is, with its own heroes, aesthetic, and values.
Part of the argument against the Web 2.0 “meme” is that it’s all marketing gibberish. That’s not true at all. What is true is that marketers are exploiting a real culture, and co-opting its lingo and selected characteristics, tacking them onto projects that have nothing to do with that culture. To bring it back to my analogy, think of all times you’ve seen marketers apply words like “jazzy”, “swinging”, or “groovy” to things that are not remotely jazzy, swinging, or groovy. Just because the invitation to your office’s company party grossly misused the word “swinging” to describe the promised vibe of the evening doesn’t mean that Duke Ellington and Count Basie didn’t exist. Just because your great aunt Esmerelda likes to describe her multicolored stretch pants as “jazzy” doesn’t negate the immeasurable impact of Miles Davis and John Coltrane on the world of music.
Saying Web 2.0 doesn’t exist just because you can’t nail down exactly what it is, or because or because the term “2.0″ doesn’t mean exactly what it implies (call it Nouveau Webism for all I care), just means that you really don’t get the point.
I hate to use “you just don’t get it” as an defense of anything, but in this case I think it’s entirely apt. As Louis Armstrong said, “Man, if you have to ask what it is, you’ll never know”. He wasn’t talking about Web 2.0 - but he could have been.
I like your new Web 2.0-related “add to del.icio.us” and “digg it!” links - very haute couture!
Dave 1/30/06 @ 6:02 pmOh, and I totally loved this article. Well-written, with great analogies - I would love to see this one picked up by the larger blogosphere!
Dave 1/30/06 @ 6:05 pmI think the backlash has as much to do with the name as anything else. “Web 2.0″ really is a bad name. You have to give Jesse James Garrett credit for coming up with a cool name for Ajax.
I think you could go further with the Jazz analogy; maybe something about the inherent improvisation in both mediums, or the order that emerges from chaos.
Bit I digg, I digg…
Nick 1/30/06 @ 6:51 pmI agree with Dave I would love to see this one picked up by the larger blogosphere!
stuart* 2/2/06 @ 3:56 pmFor those who want to help publicize this article, clicking here and “digging” it will help that happen! Thanks!
Jeff 2/2/06 @ 4:05 pmPerfect metaphor, especially when you extend it to look at the structural similarity of Jazz and Web 2.0. Robert Frenay has a great post on Jazz Ecology, which correlates the fluidity of jazz music to the history of science. Both he says, are products of ecology — both develop from a community of interrelated parts that work through competition towards homeostasis (the “sweet spot”).
Extend this to the self-organizing community of web 2.0 users and devleopers, that in the past 5 years has evolved into an internet phenomenon. Thus, returning to your metaphor, Web 2.0 is exactly like Jazz not only because it is a niche culture, but because it is an ecological system.
Kate 4/19/06 @ 4:30 pm