teach a human to fish and he won't be hungry for a day
read a human a poem and he will learn to dream and both transcend the need to fish and give him the ability to create a world where he won't go hungry anymore
My Shift In Music
the music i did in my first period of producing (1997-2004) and the music i do now (2008 and after) is vastly different. my early music was more experimental with focus on noise and drones and breakdown on rhythm and structure.
some might think, perhaps i've mellowed down. or i found taste in more conventional structures, found merit in that, and that is responsible for my shift.
but this is not the case at all.
with my first period of music, my intent was to do experimental music. to get as far away from any convention in western music and to challenge any "rule" on how music has to be.
but i soon ran to the point where it seemed impossible to go on.
for example, the traditional rhythm in most of current western music, if we look at pop and electronic music, is a 2/4 or 4/4 rhythm. but if you use a rhythm like 7/4 or 3/13, and still using a pop or techno or hardcore set of drums, are you not still following convention? and even if you used different drums, is not using a steady time signature or one that can be expressed in rational numbers still a limit?
schoenberg did some of the most experimental music in his day, yet youngsters could sneer at him for employing the traditional instruments in his compositions.
stockhausen's electronic releases don't have that flaw; but it's still music on a CD that is listened by people at home; a convention that neither traditional nor techno music had and has.
so, how to get rid of this almost infinite amount of rules and conventions in music?
easy: annihilate music altogether. to hell with all rhythms and tonal structures and song schematics.
but how to do this?
to focus on something outside of the music you create. an idea or ideal.
for example love, or anarchism, or truth, or revolution.
the goal of the track is to express an idea. how the track expresses this is meaningless. how the track is produced is meaningless.
love could be expressed by a folk song, or indie rock, or gabber, or black metal. it is no difference.
i just use sonic forms to express ideas, and often the form is techno, but that is just the form, it is of no importance. the idea or ideal is important.
but this is not the whole truth; different forms have different merits (abilities to express ideas) also i love the techno form, or new wave form, and it best, but not necessary if both the sonic form and idea behind it is great.
but the idea or ideal is the most important thing.
some might think, perhaps i've mellowed down. or i found taste in more conventional structures, found merit in that, and that is responsible for my shift.
but this is not the case at all.
with my first period of music, my intent was to do experimental music. to get as far away from any convention in western music and to challenge any "rule" on how music has to be.
but i soon ran to the point where it seemed impossible to go on.
for example, the traditional rhythm in most of current western music, if we look at pop and electronic music, is a 2/4 or 4/4 rhythm. but if you use a rhythm like 7/4 or 3/13, and still using a pop or techno or hardcore set of drums, are you not still following convention? and even if you used different drums, is not using a steady time signature or one that can be expressed in rational numbers still a limit?
schoenberg did some of the most experimental music in his day, yet youngsters could sneer at him for employing the traditional instruments in his compositions.
stockhausen's electronic releases don't have that flaw; but it's still music on a CD that is listened by people at home; a convention that neither traditional nor techno music had and has.
so, how to get rid of this almost infinite amount of rules and conventions in music?
easy: annihilate music altogether. to hell with all rhythms and tonal structures and song schematics.
but how to do this?
to focus on something outside of the music you create. an idea or ideal.
for example love, or anarchism, or truth, or revolution.
the goal of the track is to express an idea. how the track expresses this is meaningless. how the track is produced is meaningless.
love could be expressed by a folk song, or indie rock, or gabber, or black metal. it is no difference.
i just use sonic forms to express ideas, and often the form is techno, but that is just the form, it is of no importance. the idea or ideal is important.
but this is not the whole truth; different forms have different merits (abilities to express ideas) also i love the techno form, or new wave form, and it best, but not necessary if both the sonic form and idea behind it is great.
but the idea or ideal is the most important thing.
Stuck In between
why did i stop producing music (back in 2004) and why did i come back (in 2008)?
in the 90s, when all this started for me, i believed hardcore techno could kickstart, with its energy and power, an anarchist revolution and change the face of society from the bottom up. but after 7 years of doing this sound and trying to be politically active, this goal seemed so faded and far away so i decided to just quit it all.
but i could not leave this behind, and all the years in between i tried to find a way, and finally found it, and realized the revolution *is* indeed a possibility that is still around, was around all the time and most likely will always be an option.
that's why i came back. the difference between my teenage me and nowadays is that i had an - almost naive - believe in these things while i now know with certainty that anarchism and revolution is possible and understand why.
but there was also an even different thing to it. at that time when that break happened, me and a lot of people i know, had a feeling that there is an important discovery to be made, that "dreams" and "reality" can not meet and it's important to give up your dreams to fully (dis?-)integrate into "real life". but this is not true at all.
there is no difference between your aspirations, your dreams, your creativity and your "wishful thinking" and everyday life or the "outside world".
because we was a humans can reflect ourselves, can reflect the world we live in and change it, and change society, in almost infinite ways.
so, there was never a real reason to give up "hope" at all.
in the 90s, when all this started for me, i believed hardcore techno could kickstart, with its energy and power, an anarchist revolution and change the face of society from the bottom up. but after 7 years of doing this sound and trying to be politically active, this goal seemed so faded and far away so i decided to just quit it all.
but i could not leave this behind, and all the years in between i tried to find a way, and finally found it, and realized the revolution *is* indeed a possibility that is still around, was around all the time and most likely will always be an option.
that's why i came back. the difference between my teenage me and nowadays is that i had an - almost naive - believe in these things while i now know with certainty that anarchism and revolution is possible and understand why.
but there was also an even different thing to it. at that time when that break happened, me and a lot of people i know, had a feeling that there is an important discovery to be made, that "dreams" and "reality" can not meet and it's important to give up your dreams to fully (dis?-)integrate into "real life". but this is not true at all.
there is no difference between your aspirations, your dreams, your creativity and your "wishful thinking" and everyday life or the "outside world".
because we was a humans can reflect ourselves, can reflect the world we live in and change it, and change society, in almost infinite ways.
so, there was never a real reason to give up "hope" at all.
Can Music Change The World?
imagine an isolated tribe on a remote island would lose the knowledge and skills to construct boats. after a few centuries not only the knowledge could be forgotten, but also the existance of the boats themselves. the idea to travel the ocean and visit other islands would be like fairytales and myths to them.
the same has happened in western culture with the truth that art can change the world.
for centuries, people knew that books, plays, poems, music, paintings can change society.
yet if you state nowadays that art can change society positively, that, for example, a single piece of music, when done right, can spark a revolution, one is met with disbelief and ridicule.
yet this was the belief for a long time, even for most part if the 20th century.
for example, for more than half a century the soviets knew that certain art could damage their authoritarian society and lead uprisings, and took great pains to eradicate and ban it.
but also in the west people knew this.
when rock'n'roll happened in the 50s, americans realized this music could overthrow their old, conservative and also authoritarian society.
and indeed this music changed society for good. that a fullscale revolution did not happen was only because the artists and fans lacked true faith in the end and gave up with the total uprising already in sight. not because it was not strong enough for it, or because the authoritans could have stopped it.
it didn't end in the 50s. similiar fears by society happened with 60s rock, punk in the 70s, and plenty of other subcultures.
the last subculture that was seen like this, as a possible "downfall of society" (in fact a positive revolution) was techno and rave in the 90s.
again, the social "techno revolution" was indeed very much possible back then and only stopped (maybe in almost the very last second) because the DJs and producers "switched side" and joined the capitalist business branches and markets instead - for petty self gain. but the revolution is still possible, even today.
so until the end of the 20th century, in both the western and eastern bloc, people knew that art can thoroughly change society. it is only at the turn of the millenium this knowledge was lost.
if we go back in history, we are met with this knowledge again. remenber the "scandalous" books or paintings of the 19th century.
again, the oppenents claimed that if these were allowed to spread, the whole of society would be in danger (again, in these cases a good thing - because not positive social aspects were in danger but rather oppressive, authoritarian structures of society).
imagine that! in the 19th century a single book could have led to a revolution. but this is very much still possible with art today.
if we go even deeper in history, we again see how the church and monarchs went out of their way to battle certain books and texts - because they knew they could end their reign.
if we look at other cultures, for example islam, we again find the knowledge and fear of societal powerful art.
but even in western society today! the far right artists know they can change society by art (and they should be fought on this). the left radical artists, for example political punk bands, know it too.
the church types are scared of certain art due to this. the esoterics believe in the power of art.
there is only a self proclaimed "elite" of conservative media persons, subcultural people and false, boring "rarionalists" who think that music, art and culture couldn't "change a thing"
most examples i mentioned involve a certain "fear" of powerful art; but the fear was only there because it was voiced by those who were entangled in an oppressive and authoritarian society, profiteering by it, and fearing everything that could lead to real change.
almost every culture and society in history and right now knew that art can change the world. isn't it then very unlikely that the "media conservatives" are right?
believe in it - no, rather *know* it - that music, books, all of art can start a revolution - and change the world positively for good.
the same has happened in western culture with the truth that art can change the world.
for centuries, people knew that books, plays, poems, music, paintings can change society.
yet if you state nowadays that art can change society positively, that, for example, a single piece of music, when done right, can spark a revolution, one is met with disbelief and ridicule.
yet this was the belief for a long time, even for most part if the 20th century.
for example, for more than half a century the soviets knew that certain art could damage their authoritarian society and lead uprisings, and took great pains to eradicate and ban it.
but also in the west people knew this.
when rock'n'roll happened in the 50s, americans realized this music could overthrow their old, conservative and also authoritarian society.
and indeed this music changed society for good. that a fullscale revolution did not happen was only because the artists and fans lacked true faith in the end and gave up with the total uprising already in sight. not because it was not strong enough for it, or because the authoritans could have stopped it.
it didn't end in the 50s. similiar fears by society happened with 60s rock, punk in the 70s, and plenty of other subcultures.
the last subculture that was seen like this, as a possible "downfall of society" (in fact a positive revolution) was techno and rave in the 90s.
again, the social "techno revolution" was indeed very much possible back then and only stopped (maybe in almost the very last second) because the DJs and producers "switched side" and joined the capitalist business branches and markets instead - for petty self gain. but the revolution is still possible, even today.
so until the end of the 20th century, in both the western and eastern bloc, people knew that art can thoroughly change society. it is only at the turn of the millenium this knowledge was lost.
if we go back in history, we are met with this knowledge again. remenber the "scandalous" books or paintings of the 19th century.
again, the oppenents claimed that if these were allowed to spread, the whole of society would be in danger (again, in these cases a good thing - because not positive social aspects were in danger but rather oppressive, authoritarian structures of society).
imagine that! in the 19th century a single book could have led to a revolution. but this is very much still possible with art today.
if we go even deeper in history, we again see how the church and monarchs went out of their way to battle certain books and texts - because they knew they could end their reign.
if we look at other cultures, for example islam, we again find the knowledge and fear of societal powerful art.
but even in western society today! the far right artists know they can change society by art (and they should be fought on this). the left radical artists, for example political punk bands, know it too.
the church types are scared of certain art due to this. the esoterics believe in the power of art.
there is only a self proclaimed "elite" of conservative media persons, subcultural people and false, boring "rarionalists" who think that music, art and culture couldn't "change a thing"
most examples i mentioned involve a certain "fear" of powerful art; but the fear was only there because it was voiced by those who were entangled in an oppressive and authoritarian society, profiteering by it, and fearing everything that could lead to real change.
almost every culture and society in history and right now knew that art can change the world. isn't it then very unlikely that the "media conservatives" are right?
believe in it - no, rather *know* it - that music, books, all of art can start a revolution - and change the world positively for good.
My Musical Project
i think it's time to introduce you to my musical project, that i worked on since 2009. especially since it's now almost 8 years and i haven't disclosed it yet.
when i got back to hardcore in 2008, after a 4 year break, i was very euphoric. i was doing sounds like i used to do again, and the scene that i left years ago still seemed to be around. but i quickly felt this was an illusion; my music didn't feel as interesting to me anymore; it had lost "it"; also the scene was already at its end, and it began to crumble, i lost many social contacts to it, and was suddenly "in the air" again.
so where to go to now? i felt there was nothing i could do artistwise anymore.
my interest in all forms of art, music, movies etc. was still as strong as ever, though. i noticed, that i, and many people like the form of art the most that is not just a work of art, but - a "world" of art. an artistic world of its own.
the works of jodorowsky come to mind, who formed his jodoverse: a work of comic book series and maybe movies soon, that span over dozens and dozens of comics, with different collaborations, concepts, stories, tone, but taking place in the same imaginary world with the same characters that might or might not make an appearance in another new series by him.
a more "overground" example might be star wars and star trek, which also have 100s of works, offshots, sequels and specials, that take place in their same own world.
i realised; this was what i wanted to take a shot at with music. not writing another track, but creating a whole world of tracks.
there are three main principles behind it:
1. interconnections between tracks. a lot of my tracks share a same feeling, imaginery, intent, content. for example, there is not just the emerald planet, but the blue star, nightsky, midnight... space travel, behold the universe... dozens of star themed and cosmic themed tracks by me.
another occuring image is that of a palace, throne room, Enthronement...
or a cyborg, robot, android topic. you can find a lot of these "links" in my tracks.
2. there is also a connection in production. often tracks share a same approach, say "baseline and drums only", or multichannel melodies with the bass synthesizers as the focal point, or similiar fx on synths...
this has already gotten a mind of its own by now. when i watch a movie and find a good sample for example, i think, "can i really use this?" - does it fit to this imaginary production style or world that are my other tracks are in?
it has evolved into a lot of rules, sets, concepts, framework, when producing a track. and often i find i can't break these rules even i wanted to - maybe amend them - and maybe once in a while i could.
3. there is not just a "world of tracks" but i also imagine the tracks to take place in a world of music that is not my own too. a world where rockabilly, new wave, synthwave and oldschool techno are played at the same party and people dig it.
where 70s punk and early goth bands rule, together with speedcore and stockhausen. basically, it can happen that i sit down to produce, and i've feeling in my head, that is like: okay, imagine that this track is being played at a party tonight and the crowd likes big rock anthems and gabber beats, so how could this fit into my production?
it's just an imagination, but it is an influence.
and the funny thing is, that by now this really has a real world extension - or vice versa. most music social contacts i have really dig italo disco and black metal and reggea and funky disco hip hop at the same time, or try to combine these.
so, yeah, i tried to create some kind of an own world here, with its own rules and concepts and intent and framework. i'm not to judge if i succeeded at it, or, most importantly, if this might be interesting to anyone besides my self. but, for sure, for me, it was a wild ride till now!
when i got back to hardcore in 2008, after a 4 year break, i was very euphoric. i was doing sounds like i used to do again, and the scene that i left years ago still seemed to be around. but i quickly felt this was an illusion; my music didn't feel as interesting to me anymore; it had lost "it"; also the scene was already at its end, and it began to crumble, i lost many social contacts to it, and was suddenly "in the air" again.
so where to go to now? i felt there was nothing i could do artistwise anymore.
my interest in all forms of art, music, movies etc. was still as strong as ever, though. i noticed, that i, and many people like the form of art the most that is not just a work of art, but - a "world" of art. an artistic world of its own.
the works of jodorowsky come to mind, who formed his jodoverse: a work of comic book series and maybe movies soon, that span over dozens and dozens of comics, with different collaborations, concepts, stories, tone, but taking place in the same imaginary world with the same characters that might or might not make an appearance in another new series by him.
a more "overground" example might be star wars and star trek, which also have 100s of works, offshots, sequels and specials, that take place in their same own world.
i realised; this was what i wanted to take a shot at with music. not writing another track, but creating a whole world of tracks.
there are three main principles behind it:
1. interconnections between tracks. a lot of my tracks share a same feeling, imaginery, intent, content. for example, there is not just the emerald planet, but the blue star, nightsky, midnight... space travel, behold the universe... dozens of star themed and cosmic themed tracks by me.
another occuring image is that of a palace, throne room, Enthronement...
or a cyborg, robot, android topic. you can find a lot of these "links" in my tracks.
2. there is also a connection in production. often tracks share a same approach, say "baseline and drums only", or multichannel melodies with the bass synthesizers as the focal point, or similiar fx on synths...
this has already gotten a mind of its own by now. when i watch a movie and find a good sample for example, i think, "can i really use this?" - does it fit to this imaginary production style or world that are my other tracks are in?
it has evolved into a lot of rules, sets, concepts, framework, when producing a track. and often i find i can't break these rules even i wanted to - maybe amend them - and maybe once in a while i could.
3. there is not just a "world of tracks" but i also imagine the tracks to take place in a world of music that is not my own too. a world where rockabilly, new wave, synthwave and oldschool techno are played at the same party and people dig it.
where 70s punk and early goth bands rule, together with speedcore and stockhausen. basically, it can happen that i sit down to produce, and i've feeling in my head, that is like: okay, imagine that this track is being played at a party tonight and the crowd likes big rock anthems and gabber beats, so how could this fit into my production?
it's just an imagination, but it is an influence.
and the funny thing is, that by now this really has a real world extension - or vice versa. most music social contacts i have really dig italo disco and black metal and reggea and funky disco hip hop at the same time, or try to combine these.
so, yeah, i tried to create some kind of an own world here, with its own rules and concepts and intent and framework. i'm not to judge if i succeeded at it, or, most importantly, if this might be interesting to anyone besides my self. but, for sure, for me, it was a wild ride till now!
Humans And Flaws
i believe all of civilization is based on one untrue principle. which is that at the core of cultural, religious, or philosophic teachings there is always the idea that the human individual is wrong, is flawed, tainted; an original sinner, a hidden devil, a dangerous egoist and worse. he has a good and bad side, and in order to progress, he has to be wiped of his bad side, and civilization has to build institutions that "educate" and punish him to help him get rid of the evil that he contains.
i think this is all wrong. every human is already perfect. the bad and good side are just an error of perspective, two sides of the same coin. nobody needs to be changed. all flaws, all errors, all cracks, gaps, disease, illness, desire and belligerence are part of the personality and only if the whole of the personality is embraced, you can get ahead. the flaws and errors are what give a person personality and makes him different from a robot, and each personality is wonderful.
the problem is when this is not understood, and people are fighting their own personality. *then* a "flaw" or crookedness can turn dangerous. but it's not the "flaw", but the force that is put on it, that creates this problem.
if you accept everything that is "wrong" about you and do not fight yourself anymore, what you think was crooked will become shining examples of your personality, your errors will become virtues.
accept yourself, accept how and what you are and all your little mistakes, and then you will really get ahead
i think this is all wrong. every human is already perfect. the bad and good side are just an error of perspective, two sides of the same coin. nobody needs to be changed. all flaws, all errors, all cracks, gaps, disease, illness, desire and belligerence are part of the personality and only if the whole of the personality is embraced, you can get ahead. the flaws and errors are what give a person personality and makes him different from a robot, and each personality is wonderful.
the problem is when this is not understood, and people are fighting their own personality. *then* a "flaw" or crookedness can turn dangerous. but it's not the "flaw", but the force that is put on it, that creates this problem.
if you accept everything that is "wrong" about you and do not fight yourself anymore, what you think was crooked will become shining examples of your personality, your errors will become virtues.
accept yourself, accept how and what you are and all your little mistakes, and then you will really get ahead
On Creating Art
art and yourself
creating art is always about being on terms with yourself. if you're on good terms with yourself producing art will not be a problem (with some exceptions). if you're on bad terms, you cannot produce anything. "creative block" is an illusion. do one thing: if you're experiencing creative block, don't delete the attempts and try-outs that you abandon in that period, as one is tempted to do. if you take a look back on them after your block is gone, you will see that they were just as genius as your other stuff. you just did not see that in that phase because you hated your art because you were in bad terms with yourself in that phase.
what connects artists from every period, nation, faith, culture is that artists always were more in touch with their inner self and core than most people. they listened to their thoughts, feelings and ideas, and they put faith in them and trusted them.
it has always confused me how a lot of people you meet have great ideas for art, music, stories... but when you tell them "write it down, create something out of it" they say "ah i'm just a common guy, not an artist... people would not be interested in that." they don't trust themselves and their creativity.
or take punk in the 70s. it's unlikely that kids were less angry in more mellow periods of music. but those punks said, i'm angry, and i'm right about it and the world needs to know, and then the rebellion happened.
oh, what about self-destructive rockstars and the likes? they were torn between extreme self-love and contempt. if they were able to present their creative output to millions of people, they could not be in total self-contempt.
but there is also another thing to it. in order to take on the stress of, well, being famous, you need to be very centered on your self, but also very likely to get thrown out of your center when the strain is too big. that's why we find with famous artists periods of extreme egotism and excesses, and of decay and self-hate.
you are the source of your creativity. so better be in good terms with yourself.
your personal art
i said the problem of creative block comes down to lack of love for your creativity and inner self. but that's not totally true. there are two exceptions.
the general misunderstanding is that an artist can do all kind of art within his range (painting, writing, music...). sometimes reduced to a closer circle of a period, or a style.
and the better he or she is, the better he or she is adopting other styles in a certain range.
but that's not true. famous artists got famous because they had their individual style that was unlike everything of their period and age.
true, there are groups and artists known for appropriating art of different styles. but even in that case they give their very personal touch to these "other people's genres".
take techno. "a techno track should have a melody... drums... percussion..." you think, and the upcoming techno artist wants to be good and all that. but maybe you are just good at melodies. or just at rhythms. just at creating interesting fx. why not do a track that has just melody then, or where the rest is of lesser focus? or, even more specific, you are only good at certain melodies, in a certain style - then just do them.
if you are bad at a specific element - find a way around it, don't use it, or take the focus off it in your work of art.
if you think your art is not going anywhere - there must be something you are good at. even if it's just 7 minute drumloops or 10 second snippets. than make tracks based on snippets or intermingling monotonic drums.
a good artist will not be good at everything
all the time. a good artist just knows what he is good at.
ideals
a third issue is the following. art is about ideas and should be based on ideas. this knowledge has faded over time, and there is way too much focus on the technical and more direct aspects of creating art. vsts, what EQ to use, compressor, etc, in music for example.
there are ideas directly related to art, like to combine various genres, or a new take on a style. but more important are ideas that seemingly come outside of the realm of art. expressing the vision of anarchy. basing a track on the biography of a person. creating an interesting soundtrack to a fascinating book.
the more abstract, the more ideal, the better. finding a way to put a social movement, a political theory, a cultural uprising to art, to painting, to music.
if you have a good idea, you'll see that you almost automatically will find the right methods and ways to create a piece of art to it.
i expressed three very different methods to beat creative block and to create art, and i feel all three need to combined for the best results. find a way to fuse and seamlessly mend them together.
creating art is always about being on terms with yourself. if you're on good terms with yourself producing art will not be a problem (with some exceptions). if you're on bad terms, you cannot produce anything. "creative block" is an illusion. do one thing: if you're experiencing creative block, don't delete the attempts and try-outs that you abandon in that period, as one is tempted to do. if you take a look back on them after your block is gone, you will see that they were just as genius as your other stuff. you just did not see that in that phase because you hated your art because you were in bad terms with yourself in that phase.
what connects artists from every period, nation, faith, culture is that artists always were more in touch with their inner self and core than most people. they listened to their thoughts, feelings and ideas, and they put faith in them and trusted them.
it has always confused me how a lot of people you meet have great ideas for art, music, stories... but when you tell them "write it down, create something out of it" they say "ah i'm just a common guy, not an artist... people would not be interested in that." they don't trust themselves and their creativity.
or take punk in the 70s. it's unlikely that kids were less angry in more mellow periods of music. but those punks said, i'm angry, and i'm right about it and the world needs to know, and then the rebellion happened.
oh, what about self-destructive rockstars and the likes? they were torn between extreme self-love and contempt. if they were able to present their creative output to millions of people, they could not be in total self-contempt.
but there is also another thing to it. in order to take on the stress of, well, being famous, you need to be very centered on your self, but also very likely to get thrown out of your center when the strain is too big. that's why we find with famous artists periods of extreme egotism and excesses, and of decay and self-hate.
you are the source of your creativity. so better be in good terms with yourself.
your personal art
i said the problem of creative block comes down to lack of love for your creativity and inner self. but that's not totally true. there are two exceptions.
the general misunderstanding is that an artist can do all kind of art within his range (painting, writing, music...). sometimes reduced to a closer circle of a period, or a style.
and the better he or she is, the better he or she is adopting other styles in a certain range.
but that's not true. famous artists got famous because they had their individual style that was unlike everything of their period and age.
true, there are groups and artists known for appropriating art of different styles. but even in that case they give their very personal touch to these "other people's genres".
take techno. "a techno track should have a melody... drums... percussion..." you think, and the upcoming techno artist wants to be good and all that. but maybe you are just good at melodies. or just at rhythms. just at creating interesting fx. why not do a track that has just melody then, or where the rest is of lesser focus? or, even more specific, you are only good at certain melodies, in a certain style - then just do them.
if you are bad at a specific element - find a way around it, don't use it, or take the focus off it in your work of art.
if you think your art is not going anywhere - there must be something you are good at. even if it's just 7 minute drumloops or 10 second snippets. than make tracks based on snippets or intermingling monotonic drums.
a good artist will not be good at everything
all the time. a good artist just knows what he is good at.
ideals
a third issue is the following. art is about ideas and should be based on ideas. this knowledge has faded over time, and there is way too much focus on the technical and more direct aspects of creating art. vsts, what EQ to use, compressor, etc, in music for example.
there are ideas directly related to art, like to combine various genres, or a new take on a style. but more important are ideas that seemingly come outside of the realm of art. expressing the vision of anarchy. basing a track on the biography of a person. creating an interesting soundtrack to a fascinating book.
the more abstract, the more ideal, the better. finding a way to put a social movement, a political theory, a cultural uprising to art, to painting, to music.
if you have a good idea, you'll see that you almost automatically will find the right methods and ways to create a piece of art to it.
i expressed three very different methods to beat creative block and to create art, and i feel all three need to combined for the best results. find a way to fuse and seamlessly mend them together.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)