The Error In Thinking

at the turn of the century, there was a realization that a lot of people had, well, that almost anyone i knew of had, me included. indeed, it is interesting that this sudden thought was so widespread. but what was this thought? it went along the following lines; in the history of mankind, man was fueled by great ideas; of social revolution; of cultural revolution; of better times, of a better society. this was in theory. but, in "praxis", these ideas never paved the way in which it was intended. the russian revolution, that ought to bring freedom and equality to everyone, brought more oppression and misery than before. didn't even the french revolution end in "the terror"? could not be the same said about every other revolution - and even if one could say, it did have, all parts accumulated, a positive outcome; was this not a mere nothingness compared to the ideals of utopia, on whose terms it was made on?
the same could be said about cultural movements and subcultures; the young punks screamed rebellion and anarchy - but in real life, didn't they join the "workforce" and a calm life after they had turned 30?
couldn't be the same said about the hippies, the ravers, all the others?
yes, of all the lofty ideals, in the end, judging realistically, not much was left in "praxis".
we, almost, all of mankind, realized that ideal and reality never met, not in the history of men, and probably never will. and on this followed another realization, that seemed so obvious and logical; to not follow these lofty dreams of change and anarchy anymore, and instead focus on - the real life, everyday experience.
to make something groundbreaking in "the actual", in existing genres, instead of clinging for dreams.
in practical results, this for example meaned that former radical electronic musicians dropped their "riot" and "anarchy" shouting and dived into other fields, usually under the guise of "pure art", "art for arts sake". their music and creativity suffered a lot by this.
but let us get back to our way of thinking. the "conclusion" was seemed so obvious, but it was not.
what we didn't realize was that there were two lines of thinking and the one didn't necessarily had to be concluded by the other. yes, that dream and reality do not meet - in principle, this thought was correct. and, it was supported by plenty of evidence. but what we thought then - there lies the problem. because if we can't have both - theory and praxis, dreams and actual results - then why choose the latter, instead of the former?
if we cannot ever put our dreams into "praxis", into an actual, substantial result - why do we have to give up our dreams? there is no logic behind it, well, there is actually no cause or evidence or anything behind it at all. it was just *obvious* to everyone. because "we" knew that pursuing dreams, that were bound to be without the chance of a direct, concrete consequence, was painful and useless. or so we thought.
because this is the big error in the line of thinking of almost all humans. most people, it seems, are unable to follow ideals or dreams, or utopian thoughts at all. but even those who are able to somewhat comprehend these things, still demand that dreams and ideals, have to be realized in some way, have to be put into effect.
and this is not the case at all. if you follow a dream, and it is a good dream, and you have no chance of ever putting it into something concrete, this can be most wonderful thing at all.
because, if dreams and ideals are still chained to the "actual", to a direct experience, they still lack vision, they still lack - what makes them ideal. ideals and dreams that are complete abstract, complete non-definitive, are those that are to be the most admired.
let us give some examples for this. a man might admire the ideal of anarchy, of revolution. this is good. but in the next step, he immediately wants that this idea is turned real. which, in itself is not bad at all. but, if he can't do it, or sees that others cannot do it aswell, he gives up this dream - because for him it is "just a dream". and this is where the error lies. if you cannot put it into something direct - this doesn't take anything of the dream and ideal away. the dream of anarchy stays grand - even if it is never realized! and it is worthy to fight for anarchy - even if it is never realized!
similiar, a life spent on fighting for social justice, is never wasted - even if you "reached" nothing with it, even if you did not manage to make the slightest change by your struggle - it is worthy. because the idea is grand. and the idea is great.
now, to most people this might seem like a depressing stand; to have an ideal and not being able to turn it direct. but it is not like that! the guy who fights for social justice, if he believes in it, even if he "fails", even if it amounts to seemingly "nothing", will live a much happier life than the richest men who is devoid of dreams and ideals - because this idea will give him happiness, too.
of course, this doesn't mean you should pursue ideas for selfgain - but you will gain a lot, gain everything - if you follow a dream or a great idea.
it doesn't matter if a dream cannot be put through - it was never the matter - strive for dreams - for the dreams sake!
this was the error in judgement and logic that we made - that the lack of "substance" of ideals and dreams would mean, that we should abandon dreams.
of course, in no way does that mean you should abandon the "everyday life", "real world" either - live in the real world. but also live in your dreams.
what should also be noted that if you pursue an ideal for an ideals sake, and it is a grand ideal, and you don't care if this ideal "can work" or not - *then* you will actually achieve a lot, in everyday life in the real world too. just like many (or all?) men who truly pursued an ideal and dream and dedicated themselves to it, went down in history. but, again, this should not be a prerequisite for taking this path, not at all.

so to end with our beginning, what would be the results for the subcultures, for anarchists and dreamers?
be a punk, be a hippie, be an anarchist, be a revolutionary, be a wonderful dreamer, or be something new - don't
let it bother you that the "actual" hippie scenes, punk scenes, anarchist scenes, men, women, actions and moves, might not be on par with those ideas and dreams - because this matters little. because the ideals are great. and this is what matters.

Our Current Crisis Of Culture

it is obvious and easy to realise what the current crisis of culture is. and it is easy to explain, why this crisis is so plainly visible to many - while to others it is invisible, even to the point that they insist there would be no crisis at all.
in the last decade of the 20th century, people were bored with the generic tripe that polluted the music area - all that cheesy eurodisco, all those ridiculous poser "hardrock" bands, and so on. instead they wanted new, fresh, different, groundbreaking, breathtaking ideas, concepts. and they got them. some created techno, acid, others dark ambient, breakcore, or other experimental and different music. it is impossible for those who did not live that era to realise how hard these sounds hit everyone; how the feeling of revolution and utopia and paradise music spread. because they are used to it now; but those living then, were not.
now, for nostalgics, the scheme is easy: revolution was in the air; we go to techno paradise, experimental music will break through, forgone by the rock relics and the boring pop genres. but, according to them, something went wrong, and the revolution failed and did not come. but nothing could be more from the truth.
we had our techno revolution. we had our breakcore revolution. we had our dark ambient move. and - we won.
and this is exactly the problem. if we were just crushed by the state repression, or this music had never left its shell, the situation would be much better now. where is the problem with this, with this succesful change?
because, we wanted new ideas, new movements, new society. and we have them. but, now, as they're established - they are simply not new ideas anymore. "our" new ideas are the old ideas now. what was once revolutionary - techno and its genres - is now reactionary. because life is about change, about movement, about breaking from the past each time anew. it cannot stop, it must not stop. yes, the techno breakthrough, the breakcore moment did *indeed* bring a lot of new ideas and modes to the musicworld; but these days, they are simply not new anymore - they belong to the past too, became boring, and worse, predicticable, formatted, precut. in that other decade, it was a breath of fresh air when boring pop songs were cut up and tuned to frantic beats - nowadays, you know this exactly how the breakcore track by some bullshit artist is gonna play out, when you hit play.
the same goes for society; society is indeed different from how society was in the 90s, 80s, 70s. but - it still sucks. or rather, it sucks - again.
our current culture, our music, our mode of living, is indeed the result of the breakthroughs, the social and sonic revolutions of the 90s; rave utopia came true; as came breakcore resistance. but utopia grew stale; as did resistance. not because these ideas were wrong - they were glorious. but because they are no longer new and exciting; they are old, and conservative, and establised. our past revolutionaries are the establishment of today. this can be seen in the all-night techno clubbers; the "party and forget society" myth still holds true for them; but it no longer has the utopian aspect, anarchist, fantastical edge to it, that it had to the first ravers.
the revolutionaries, the ravers, the experimenters, wanted new ideas in that past decade; and they got them. but now, they are not fresh anymore.
culture is always the product between two forces; the agents of change, and the agents of stillstand. those who were agents of change in that other decade, are agents of stillstand now. and the genres that were agents of change; speedcore, acidhouse; too are agents of stillstand now.
now, to get back to our beginning of this texts, this explains why this "crisis" is not visible to many; rather, it is not "visible" to the agents of stillstand; as they *want* stillstand, they do not see the problem. they appreciate it if nothing changes and culture and music just goes on, and doesn't change, so they approve of this.
the cultural stillstand, that is gripping western culture now, is just the "normal situation" for them now.
while for the agents of change, this annoying situation is plainly visible.
what needs to be done, is to rise up once again; to forget the concepts of past music and culture and society. to find something new, create something new, create something great, something wondrous. to produce music that was not done before; to rebel, to revel, to rave, to start a revolution.
"techno" is multiple decades old; and just as tripe as rock was after it lasted several decades. leave this behind; find new ideas, moves, possibilites, methods.
the ideas, the genres, that were so revolutionary in the past, are the moments of reaction now. we need to move on. to create something - awesome. to reach utopia!

My Doomcore Project Winter 2011-2013

the first part of my doomcore project is over. i call the music i do now "post-doomcore" or other terms, even though it might still be considered doomcore. but this is another thing. the point is that there is something that has a definite quality to this first part of my doomcore projects. most of my life i've been struggling against a tendency inside of myself. this is, to just say "fuck it", to everything. i mean, not any concrete, real sense - not to go to live in the woods or anything similiar. but just to give up hope to any ideal, utopia, believe in a sense to society, to think that there is any thing that could give one rest and peace in this world.
as, i said, i was struggling against it. related to my real life, that means i always wanted to give up doing music. what was the point to it? could i really change the world? had the music really a deep impact on anyones life? i thought - no. of course, just "getting known" or "getting gigs" was never a point to my music. i'd have done pop music if i wanted these aims. so, even in a time when my music landed on vinyls and i had plenty of booking, i was always on the verge of calling it all quits and never create music again. or rather, especially during this time. but, i was struggling. over the years, though, i realised that this feeling, this tendency, stayed with me. and i realised, that if it stayed, it must have been a part of me, or at least somehow related to a part of me. as you can never fight yourself, or any part of yourself, i knew, and was sure, that i finally had to give in, let myself get dragged in this dark deep whirlpool of water. to lose all hope, all ideals, all pleasure, that went beyond the "everyday experience" of TV shows or a hot coffee or whatever. any belief in something higher, higher joy. i decided that my music was to be a journal to this downward journey. just in case, be remained that this was a wholly, what some might say, "philosophical" journey. i never intended to let any of this darkness spread to my real life or surroundings or social life etc. as music was never part of my real life.
so i wrote tracks, and tried to put these feelings of despair and desperation into them.
and, what should i say, it was worth it. at the end of it, i was refreshed with more energy and hope and pleasure in small and big things than before. now, the doomcore tracks of that period of my life are still there. i don't think i can continue with them, and have made more joyful music lately. in fact, listening to them and be reminded of the despair, frightens me a little. but really, in the end all in life is a fun trip, so maybe someone else can find pleasure in them. maybe this detour was not necessary, or maybe i couldn't make the music i do now with this past experience. now i want to try to make something different.

Ideology-Free Music

the question of music and ideology is indeed a complicated affair. i called for the fusing of anarchism and radical theories in past texts, and denounced the tendency to call for "ideology-free" music. while i stand to this position, the matter is not as simple as it seems, or rather, there is also another point of view to it. the other position misuses an idea that in principle is true - that music should not be subject to roles, categories, "demands", a forced position, a hierarchy - to cut off political involvement in music.
as i said, this is in principle right - yes, music should not be subjugated or controlled, or subjected to essentially hierarchical and authoritarian methods, which are involved when it is said that music *has* to incorporated certrain ideas, be they be political or authoritarian.
but - the important "but" - is that the renouncement of politics, or another "ideology", doesn't solve this at all. because the so-called "unpolitical", "unideological" music in the western world, that is not made according to principles of marxism or socialism or anarchism, is still very much ideological. because the idea that music is made, that music *should* be made for enjoyment, for fun, for excitement, for leisure time *only* - is highly ideological too. music, as it exists right now in the western world - all the pop, rock, techno - holds a certain position, a certain purpose. and this position, this purpose is truly ideological. music is there for "kicking back" after a hard work day, to find some kind of "relaxement" in the boring everyday world, to have a "good feeling", to spend some "free time". there are a thousand ways in which this is can be seen as ideological, and especially, capitalist. the concept of a "worktime" and "freetime" for example, in which the free time is used to gather enough strength back to face the capitalist "workday" - to keep the machines oiled and capitalism going. but we can cut this here to get to more important positions. which is, that is *obviously* an ideology when it is demanded that music has to be in a certain way; even if the demand is that music is forenjoyment. second, that obviously this is a rule too; a demand; authoritarian; oppressive; if music has to be in a certain way. third, that this "simple enjoyment", simple pleasure, that pop music might bring to some, in the end prevents them from reaching higher pleasures, higher purposes, higher joys.

music can be so wonderful; it can lead to adventure and exploration; it can change lifes; it can change worlds; it can inspire the imagination; it can inspire humans. it can lead to daring paths, encounterig the unknown, the wonderful, the bizarre and the powerful. music can collapse the whole world and unfold a new one. if you only seek music for a fleeting moment of simple, flavorless "pleasure" inbetween "worktime" and the next day - well, let me tell you, you are missing out.

of course, the western position is not merely that music should be there for "enjoyment" only; it is more complex; hard to pinpoint, but holding a definitive position and method - and a very ideological one.
the "unpolitical" music of the 2000s was more ideological than any marxist hippieband or socialist punkband of past decades.


the reason that it is not obvious that the "enjoyment-only" position is ideological, is that people are used to it; they grew up with it. their parents listened to music for "fun-only"; their friends do. or so it seemed.
but it becomes clear when the western position is compared with other cultures; because in almost no culture or society in the history of men, music was for "fun-only". it was tied in with the political, religious, aristocratic, cultural structures. you wouldn't think that a man who was assigned to create a piece of music for the glory of the king would've had said to him "meh, i only do music for fun only - couldn't care less about glory". or that the priest who chanted a babylonian ritual would've thought that this is for fun only.
only with the degradation of "modernism", in the 19th and 20th century, the idea arose that music could be for "fun-only".


but let us get back to ideology. it doesn't end here. even if you don't see how contemporary music, that is "unpolitical", still runs along ideological lines, which exists plentiful, there is another problem ahead.
we said music should not be forced to fit in categories and concepts, preconceived ideas and preformatted notions. well, to tell you some news, *music* itself is a category, a notion, an ideology.
if you want art, music to be free; to be free of authotarian ideas and concepts, and ideologies; you have to get rid of art and music itself.
because there is a strict definition of what is music, to most people. a song you hear on youtube, a record you put your needle on, an orchestra you hear play, is, for some reason considered music. the rattling of a jackhammer, the sounds of traffic, or on the other hand, the sounds of nature, wind, animals are not considered music. why should the one be considered music, and not the other? why shouldn't music include *any* sound that exists? this would have some extended consequences. for example, if you want to hear a sweet song, you could go to the street crossing and listen to the traffic; or if you're more of the nature type, take a walk in the forest. if you think music is only that track that is on the album your bought, or was presented in the show you watched - you still have some very basic, preconceived, simplistic, and most importantly, ideological concept of what is "music" and what not.
again, what i find especially interesting here how it would change the concept of listening to a piece of music; if you want to enjoy music, put down your headphones, turn of your speakers, and listen to the hum of your computer, or the noises of your coffee machine.
if kids start to talk not about this or that band they discovered, but which appliances gives them the most wonderful "music" - then we can start to have a good time in society.

and last, why should music even be limited to accoustic, sonic concepts? if we have to get rid of all ideology, and categories, then that music is inherently accoustic, is another thing based on a category that has no foundation, that is to be abandoned. and this to me is the most important point. why couldn't music be; an anarchist text; a just riot; a kiss; a walk through the streets; sitting down at the beach?
in language, and by poets, this connection was always there; or rather, to poets it was obvious - because it is obvious, unless you are willing to close your eyes. certain architecture has been called "frozen music"; what is said to you by your love becomes "the song of her words"; you "like the sound of that" if you agree with an idea; "the rhythm of youth"; and so on; terms, concepts of music have been addressed to many social, cultural, or even everyday concepts; because they are inherently so. to think music comes only of "sound" and can only be sound - is a boring point of view.
if you want to rid music of ideology; than you have to rid music of the 'ideology of music' too; and see that what is music and what is not music, is itself something that is open to debate.

Old vs.New, And Ideology

the core point of music is the ideas, the concepts, the thoughts, the plans, the settings, the framework, the road, the politics, the ideologies, that are behind it. make no mistake. there can be an idea, and / or an ideology found behind every piece of music. this is exactly what makes most of todays breakcore, hardcore, IDM, or intelligent techno, discofunk, and all the other "names", so awkward, so boring, so shameful. the ideology behind it - sucks. it is usually capitalist, ultra-capitalist, hyper-consumist, conformist, authoritarian - hierarchic, oppressive and weakening. one for the feeble minded. oh, you don't believe me? check the average lyric of all the "hip" clubbing music todays - cues to expensive clothes, shopping, luxury lifestyle, life of the rich, of the famous, most socially elevated clubs whose bouncers don't let you in, and such. and you want to tell me this is not ultra-capitalist music? oh, it's 'ironic'? it doesn't seem very ironic to me. if the nazi party says they're ironic, would that make them ironic? no, it would more appear as a cop-out. the same goes for our capitalist techno producers. or take breakcore. how many clues to anarchism and rebellion are in your average breakcore track - as opposed to clues to star wars, boring 70s disco, all sorts of capitalist pop culture trash? maybe a 1:10.000 ratio.
okay, so i get it all wrong? then tell me, what is the ideology behind pop breakcore and club techno? there is none? nonsense! there is always an idea and intellectual structure behind a piece of art. if you don't know this, you don't know art.

now, this raises an interesting point. because these types of producers actually *do* spend a lot of energy to cover the tracks. to declare their "art" to be beyond "petty" things such as politics, anarchism, uprising, ideologies - 'ideologies are a thing of the past'. but let me assure you, they produce indeed very ideological music, that is full of politics. they hide it, so they don't have to expose their actual politics, so people don't realise what a boring revamp of reaganism, 80s yuppie pop overkill, and hardline reactionary crap their political agenda is.
the point that this music is without ideology doesn't work because you can't have music without politics, or ideology, or ideas.
also, politics, ideas, anarchism, and social struggles are not "petty" things that would taint art; these are what give greatness to art, are greater things, and art without them - if it doesn't have a better idea to offer - would be very weak and small art indeed.

also, this explains why there is a gap of people who adored the experimental hard genres in former years, like breakcore and speedcore and hardcore, and those who do now.
because the original hardcore and breakcore had an anarchist, or individualist, radical mindset, that was dangerous, eager to change society, intented to rip through social rules, to be powerful and insurgent. music intented to change peoples life.
in what way does contemporary breakcore intend to change people's life? to the better? to - an utopian state?
hell, it can't even help their listeners to get out of their shitty jobs.
so the people who listened to the original hardcore were people attracted to this; individualists, rebels, freethinkers, anarchist, ruffians.
each one is attracted to music that fits to ones own ideology and thoughtset.

but, again, there is light on the horizon. there might be a comeback of anarchist politics - of utopia, of rebellion, of insurgency - to the hardcore music, to the hardcore places. and this time, it will blow everyone away.

Der Kosmische Witz

es gibt nichts in dieser welt, was nicht lächerlich wäre. der staat, die gesellschaft, die menschen - eben die ganze welt. alles in ihr, alles was es gibt.
es gibt nichts, was von wert wäre, wirklich von wert wäre, von bedeutung, von sinn, von inhalt, von zweck und nutzen - alles ist lachhaft.
und erst wenn man diesen kosmischen witz erkennt - dass alles ein witz ist, kann man wirklich frei sein.
am ende jeder epoche haben die menschen weisheit erlangt - nämlich die, dass die vorherige lächerlich war. die christen spotteten frei über die götter der heiden, der antiken menschen - vorher wäre es ihnen bei ihrem leben verboten gewesen, dies zu tun, nun brach sich der humor frei die bahnen, und das was im altertum heilig war wurde der lächerlichkeit preis gegeben. ebenso verfuhren die männer der epoche der aufklärung; pfaffen, adlige, selbst könige und päpste müssten sich dem gespött preis geben - weil für die männer der neuen welt dies alles nur noch ein witz war, seinen wert und inhalt verloren hatte. aber jede epoche hat bislang immer ihren neuen ernst gefunden, sachen, die sie für ernst nahmen, die für sie nicht lächerlich waren. die religiös verblendeten, die dekadenten adligen, wurden von den menschen der aufklärung verspottet. aber ihre neue ideale; der staat, die staatliche authorität und sein militär und polizei; das geld und die macht der reichen, das durfte nicht zum objekt des spotts, der missachtung, zum gelächter werden; auf todesstrafe musste die menschen diese "authoritäten" und ihre regeln befolgen.
nun dann, es wäre an der zeit, das die menschen nicht nur über die hälfte der dinge lachen, sondern über alle dinge.
ist denn alles lustig? wird so mancher fragen. aber das alles wertlos ist, wird ja wohl keiner bestreiten?
was wäre denn von wirklichem wert? was wäre denn von wirklicher dauer?
und wenn alles wertlos - ist es dann nicht besser, über alles zu lachen, anstatt ein saures gesicht zu ziehen?
es gibt kein ding, keine sache, kein gedanke, kein ideal in der welt, das wirklich erhaben wäre. kein staat, keine gesellschaft - wie gesagt, aber auch keine freiheit, keine hoffnung, kein ziel. alles verdient es, zum gespött des einzelnen zu werden. alles verdient ist, niveliert zu werden, seine erhabenheit zu verlieren, zum spielball zu werden, mit dem die menschen willkürlich verfahren.
oh, dies ist kein text eines zynikers. es heisst nicht, das alle dinge oder gedanken trostlos und traurig währen. so manche sache wird einem genuss bringen, und man kann sich von einem rausch zum nächsten wenden, immer höhere stufen der extase geniessen. aber nichts davon ist wirklich von wert, oder von dauer, oder von wirklicher bedeutung. genuss bleibt. aber eben nur genuss. der rausch bleibt nur "ein mittel zum zweck". nichts tieferes - nichts höheres. und nichts wahres.
es ist kein wunder, das man traurigen menschen nachsagt, sie hätten ein ernstes gesicht. und wer ein heiteres gesicht hat - wer könnte dann noch trauer tragen?
wenn man über alles lacht, ist man über alles erhaben.
kinder nehmen noch nichts ernst und lachen über alles, und sind deshalb im idealfall permanent am lachen - dauerhaft glücklich. irgendwann bekommt jedoch der mensch die grille, dass es vielleicht dinge geben könnte, die von bedeutung sind, die wichtig wären, die etwas wert wären. welcher irrtum! alles ist bedeutungslos, unwichtig, wertlos. alles eben nur - ein witz. es wäre schön wenn die menschen später in ihrem leben dazu zurückfinden könnten, wieder alles "mit humor" zu nehmen.
es ist also alles ein witz. also lasst uns lachen, und glücklich und zufrieden sein.

Art And Utopia

there are people who suggest music to me, various styles, the established genres, the "established nishes"; they say the music is really nice, good produced, exciting, well-made, interesting, enjoyable; good to party too, good to chill too, or good to listen to in other occurances.
but, when i listen to this music, i ask myself, what has this music to do with me, how does it relate to me, how does it relate to my live, my heart; to my dreams, my desires, my thoughts, my wishes; how does it enable me to change my life, to rise above the circumstances; how does it enable me to reach utopia; how does it enable me to reach my dreams? and does it give me new dreams, now wondrous thoughts, adventure, the wonderful?
there is music like that. there was music like that. but most music, today, or maybe in the past too, is not like it. but there also is different music.
the hippies thought their music could change the world. to overthrow the establishment. to create an utopia. the punks thought they could fight society and win.
where are these artists now? where are the bands? is there an artist who honestly, deeply thinks his music could change society from the bottom up? to reach utopia? that, by his music, he could create a better world?
no, current music, current artists, are devoid of these things. because these ideas and ideals are dead for them. because any ideal, that is not "money" or "success" is dead to them. soulless music by soulless artists for soulless consumers.
who still thinks there is a revolution, of society, a political and cultural revolution, in the west possible by music and counterculture? no one? if not, why not?
or if that is too "political" for you - then, to make a better world, on a large scale, by music and art?
or at least to change your life and that of others - to a wondrous, sweet, beautiful, perfect thing?
no, these ideas seem to be gone. because people are without vision and concept now - or rather, without knowledge and insight. these ideas are still true. the ideals are still true. you can reach utopia, a revolution, anarchy - if only for yourself. it is possible.
i painted a bleak picture - i am sure there are some artists out there who still do it for the "cause". and i know there are at least still listeners - the word "listeners" is to passive, i say activists - who believe art can bring a change, and believe in revolution and anarchy, or at least in utopia, and in ideals.
and we might very likely grow in numbers soon.
the point is not to give up - but to hope, to be sure, and to be active.

My Musical Language

if i should describe myself, i would call myself an explorer. that's really my mode and modus. what interests me. my drive. it maybe explains why, when i reached something artistically, i usually discarded it, and moved on. because i needed to move on, and to know more, to explore more.
this exploration has three basic roots for me.
one, knowledge from books and other media. ah, you're book-nerd, you might now think. well, maybe i am. but let me continue. i tried to read up on any imaginable topic, and even more. usually when i had something that interested me i tried to find as many books, theories, written stuff and possible and study it. it's a boon for me that public domain ebook libraries such as gutenberg.org exist now as this means i can read a lot more and faster than if i had to get my supply on the real world libraries here.
but, even as a child, i realised that getting information from books is not enough. you have to venture out in the world, deeply, to really explore things, to real get to know stuff. i felt, and later knew, that there is so much that is not in books, not chartered, not explored, that can only by understood by life itself.
it's only now that i realise that there can be a lot of value in "book knowledge", there were times when any written knowledge or theory was suspicious so me.
so, when i got into anarchism, i first got it to through books, essays, pamphlets. but i knew that to be a real anarchist, i needed to get really involved in the anarchist scene, really get connected with other anarchists - in real life. so one day i went down to the anarchist bookstore, where i never had been before, and a woman let me in and she made tea for me and she asked me a bit about my life and it was a bit of an awkward or curious situation for both of us. this was how i got involved with anarchism then eventually.
this was just my real life exploration regarding anarchism; i explored much more and much deeper, which might have room in another text. just let me give an example, various people had chosen me as a "master" for them, even though i never hinted at that or had mentioned a desire for this. not some sexual master, not what you think, you naughty boy/girl. a philosophical, sage-like master. at the age of 21,22, i should add.
so let's leave the real world exploration at that.
the third, and most important source for my exploring needs, was - surprise surprise - myself.
if i found a theory, a concept that i found interesting, i tried it on myself, to find out more, to learn more, to put it in practice, to gain something.
and also, i used myself to gain knowledge and insight; one's own mind, personality or intellect can really be a great source for that.
now, to come to the point, what has this to do with my music. well, i had the feeling, i had gathered a lot of knowledge and insight eventually. and i wanted to spread it. but i didn't do this in the language of words, but in the language of sounds. instead of writing a book, or a theory, i created tracks and sounds. but just as authors want to put through a message, an intent or a theory, i tried to do the same; just with music.

there were three, well there were more, but three basic reasons for that.

first, it was of its time. i started making music in the 90s, and in the 70s, 80s, 90s, and before that, the thing, the theory was, that ideas, messages can be transported with music, and better than with books or words.
the three-chord aggression of punkrock enticed and was understood better by the kids around the world than a book could have done; the sound was the message. the same goes for techno. uprising, rebellion, or simply new ideas were transported by sound.
second, there are a lot of philosophers, "sages" and such that explained that language, words, books, are treacherous; that it has its limits; that if you want to transport really interesting, complex and deep concepts, you need to use a different form of communication, without words; such as art.
this theory made sense to me and i followed it.
third, my music was understood, my words not.
i could write about my hatred for "society", "western civilisation" and such and people would just scoff at it. but if i put the same rage into sound, they went mental on the dancefloor to it.
so, i felt that this was indeed an excellent way to communicate my ideas.

i tried to put as much theories, concepts, knowledge, ideas, philosophies, thoughts, into my music and my sound as possible. i tried to put all i assumed to know and thought to be true into it. from almost any field of knowledge. my tracks were like pages to me, my sounds like words, my collections of tracks like books. i don't say this to enheight myself or to praise myself; just to state my intent. if i succeeded at it or not, i am not to judge.

i wanted to write down my own conclusive theory of life; sonically.

so this was it; the driving force behind my art.
right now, it seems, that the way to communicate with music, has been lost, or is fading away. people rarely can "read" in tracks anymore; they just see - "hear" - what's on surface; they not only not see a deeper meaning, they don't even dig for it - as it's "just music" to them. except for some rare explorers of my liking, who spend hours analysing tracks, songs, albums, artists.
that's why i shifted to actually write down my theories in words now. this way, it seems, it is more understand or at least noticed by people.
the situation might get worse; or the language of music will be getting more understood in the future again.
but i had my thing with music, and exploring. i enjoyed it. and in the end, the whole music thing was also a lot of fun.

low entropy, july 2014

True Summer Of The 90s - Fuck Arte, Let's Dance

in response to some of the misrepresentations of the 90s techno, hardcore and rave movements of the 90s as shown on the arte TV shows around the "summer of the 90s".

on the weekend 26/27.07.2014 arte tv showed their series "summer of the 90s", with also a focus on what they thought was the techno scene of the "90s". though, mysteriously, they seemed to most part to completely forget the rave, hardtrance, gabber, speedcore music that ruled the 90s in europe during that time.
while obviously speedcore was more an underground phenomenon, gabber, hardcore and rave enticed millions of people during these days. and speedcore, if not as famous, was important for several subcultures too. but for arte this obviously never existed, never did take place, instead for them the sound was all some sort of plaything of now hipster and chic "dance" producers who they interviewed in their expensive suits.
fuck you arte, yes, fuck you.
this is to show some true music "of the 90s".
shouts out to all ravers, gabbers and hardcore freaks, from back then, and from the current days.

chapter 1: hardtrance and rave

rave peaked around the years 1993-1995. millions loved these sounds and partied to them. notably for rave and hardtrance were complex synth-driven melodic and harmonic structures, undermined by powerful and frantic beats. almost a combination of 70s synth avantgarde with a jackhammer sound.

tracks:

legend b - lost in love
quench - dreams
genetic waste - palace of wisdom
state of mind - our destination

chapter 2: hardcore and gabber

hardcore and gabber didn't stand back in popularity compared with rave. every second teenager loved that sound (i suppose? at least everyone around here) and the largest raves and techno events usually had a hardcore floor too.
when techno got "chic" around the mid of the 1990s, the "scene" was quickly to jettison this hardcore heritage though.

tracks:

strontium 9000 - dynamic fall out
chosen few - after hourz
wedlock - ruffneck
wedlock - void sector

chapter 3: speedcore and noizecore

both a reaction to the commercialization of hardcore and rave, and also a feat to take it to the further extremes, speedcore remained underground, but had a dedicated following in the 90s and let to some wonderful productions.

tracks:

noize creator - gangsta
s 37 - crush your mind
dj tron - fuck that happy shit
rage reset - unknown structure

On "Illegal" Immigration

there is some thing that has, to my knowledge, been completely overlooked in the american debate on illegal immigration so far. this is, the question, who are the immigrants?
well, who are the immigrants? well, who are the people they call immigrants - from mexico, from south america?
these are, to most part, descendents of the spanish, portuguese, and other conquerors, and the former inhabitants of america - the so called "indigenous" population. the various aztecs, mayas, incas and so on.
for fucks sake! these are the original inhabitants of the american continent. america belongs to them. if a mexican wants to cross the border to USA, he just enters a territory that belonged to his ancestors for thousands of years.
it's theirs! it belongs to them. you white americans are the immigrants, the illegal aliens. the debate should not be if mexicans should be allowed to enter the USA, but if mexicans are willing to let the white american protestants live on american territory for more time.

About Doomcore Records

hi,
thought i'd wrote down some ideas about doomcore records.

1. doomcore records if for real doomcore. this is a time when doomcore is "being discovered", by hype and business labels, and is watered down and mixed with hardstyle and other crap. it's okay - to me in the moment, but it could be that it goes into total hype soon.
so, doomcore records is for the real doomcore, the underground, the true dark techno and hardcore. not done by hype labels or artists, but by real people with real motivations.

2. doomcore records will always stay a free label, with freely shared releases. nothing wrong in running a pay label - but this free label approach will make sure everyone can download the tunes and releases, and it is kept underground and is not subject to money issues or hype.

3. doomcore records is for true doomcoreheads. it's music for you, by you, with you. the artists are just doomcore fans like yourself (i hope ;-) . the label is for those who are really into the sound, who know what it's about, who are into this thing, who are involved, yet also for newcomers who just discovered. not for the big party crowd at some commercial rave, but for the home listener, just like you. not that we mind if it is indeed played to large crowd at some point ;-) but it's not the main goal.

4. doomcore records is for all types of doomcore. there are so many various forms of doomcore in the moment - some harder, some more experimental, some fast paced, some slowly and menacing, and doomcore records is for all of them. there will always be two focal points with doomcore records: the style that has been called "phuture rave"; dancefloor stompers that are yet dark and brooding. and the introspective, experimental doomtechno sounds, slow, but dangerous.

5. doomcore records is family. when i got into hardcore, i liked there was no "business" atmosphere around it. these labels released thousands of record yet you could hang with them, chill with them, laugh with them, there was no level difference or hierarchy. i want to have this spirit with doomcore records too. there is really no level difference between the fans, the arists, the label. you are all part of this, part of doomcore, and doomcore records just wants to play a humble part in it too. the listeners are just as important as the releases that get put out.

and, most importantly, it's about the fun!
so, stay true, support the doomcore, and party.

doomcore records over and out
written 28.06.2014

No Name And Mouse

No Name And Mouse

i have always been intrigued by the music of stella and poka michelsen. to me, it is some of the most complex,
complicated, intelligent music ever made. levels and levels of beats; noize; ambiance; abstraction; is built on
top of each other. they're so far away from the "dumb gabber" and "speedcore" most people think of when the word'hardcore' is mentioned. is this hardcore? is that even techno? it is more of art - real art, abstract, maybe it would belong more to gallery, a museum, than to a party were people dance - if museums wouldn't be so boring!
i can't find many artists that could compare to this. the sheer level of complexity is overwhelming. some of the best somatic responses productions could compare - in complexity and experimentation of sounds. or the most intricate construction of underground PCP via acardipane. yet, maybe it is not right to compare this music - as it plays in its own universe. frantic noise, shrill, alien screams - often driven home by a powerful bassdrum, and killer punctured beats and hits. for some reason, i never compared this so much with other music, but to other forms of art, movies, pictures. this would fit well to dystopian cyberpunk picture, an onslaught of screeching robots pacing through a destroyed, wrecked industrial wasteland.
there are so many things i am missing in most hardcore that are in michelsen's productions; changes of beats, tempo, complex trackstructures with many twists, beginnings, endings, turn-arounds. lengthy intros of weird noises, laughter, ambient drones. some michelsen records fetch high sums at collectors at this time, and rightfully so.
while many other of their contempary artists around their decades became quite "famous" by now, known also to the dreaded "gabber" and "breakcore" crowd, the michelsen sisters still seem to be kind of a secret hint, with a cult following. yet, they are already legends, in their regard, in their own way.

Low Entropy - Tribute To Mouse And No Name Mix

01. Auto-Psy - Oxyde
02. No Name - Black Dream
03. No Name - Koma
04. No Name - Help
05. No Name - Ydroid
06. Mouse - Halloween
07. Mouse - Organe
08. Mouse - Vlad
09. Mouse - Digne
10. Mouse - Métropole
11. Mouse - Shift
12. No Name - A
13. Auto-Psy - Go Out
14. Auto-Psy - Neutron
15. Mouse - Hemostase
16. Erase Head - Pussy Cat
17. Mouse - Faf
18. Erase Head - Dome
19. No Name - Kamasutra
20. Auto-Psy - Escape
21. No Name - Start End

Low Entropy - Tribute To Mouse And No Name Mix by Low_Entropy on Mixcloud

Filmtip: Flatland - The Film (In German Language)

verfilmung des mathematischen romans aus dem 19ten jahrhundert.
animationsfilm von 2007.
das quadrat "a quadrat" ist mit einer linie verheiratet und hat pentagone und ein hexagon als kind. sein bruder arbeitet für präsident kreis. das leben von a quadrat gerät ducheinander, als a kugel in sein leben tritt, und ihn von der existenz einer dritten dimension überzeugen will. a quadrat weigert sich erst dies zu glauben, sieht es aber dann doch ein, und vertritt die these dass es dann auch eine 4te, 5te, n-te dimension geben muss. dies will die kugel jedoch nicht einsehen.
sehr gut gemacht, flashige visuals und überhaupt sehr flashig. allerdings auch teilweise sehr langatmig, musste mich regelrecht zwingen die ganzen 90 minuten anzuschauen. teilweise sehr viel liebe zum detail und lustige ideen, der träge würfel carlton, die kreischigen frauen, die etwas exzentrische kugel. oder der könig der nullten dimension in seinem punktland mit seinem rastafari-dialekt. "ah da joy, da joy, da all in all, da one in one".
scheinbar gibt es aus dem gleichen jahr noch eine verfilmung von flatland, diesmal mit martin sheen. habs aber noch nicht gesehen.
so wie ich es verstehe wurde der ganze film mit einer handelsüblichen 3d software erzeugt und aufwendig "zu hause" vertont? interessant.
fazit: wir wollen eine fortsetzung!

Partials And Harmonics

it is my understanding that, in western theory, the belief is that those intervals and tunings sound best, that fit to the overtones that are in the sounds of the instruments used. this always seemed a bit nonsensical to me. a sine has no overtones yet is one of the most harmonic soundsources one can use, with the usual intervals. i read that in psychoaccoustic, a sine is perceived as having 1, 2 overtones. yet, sine's also great with complex intervals that don't run along the basic overtones.
also, most importantly, when doing music myself, i noted, that when a melody or harmonic structure sounds great, it also sounds great when you use a different waveform with completely different overtones. for example, a melody based on a (very harmonic) sawtooth-wavshape also sounds great with a waveform of completely complex overtones. if the "overtone harmony" theory would hold true, it must sound horrible if you exchange waveforms with those of completely different overtones.
in my album "crystalline derivates" i took the same track, the same melody, and used completey different wave sources for it - completely harmonic sines and saws, completely strange ones, even some that are not a based on a short looped sequence at all. listen to it for yourself, if you are interested. if you can appreciate the original track, i think all variations sound "correct" in their way, not one of them is detroyed by the use of complete different overtones.

http://lowentropy.bandcamp.com/album/crystalline-derivates

On Anti-Sedative EP

in 1999, i already had sent out dozens of demo-tapes. emailed as much labels. but, so far, no one was interested in releasing a full EP by me. i had some tracks on compilations - biophilia allstars, irritant. but not a true release yet. so i walked in the otaku record store here in my city, hamburg. i had seen hardy, of fischkopf, working at the container record store before, so i know what he looked like. he ran blut records now, out of the otaku store. i bought a record, i think it was somatix on deadly systems, that just came in, and left. next week i came back with a demo-tape i had recorded for this purpose. i walked up to hardy and said "you are hardy?". he said "yes". i said "you're doing blut records right? i have a demo tape here for your label, with my music". he looked at me with a bit of bewilderment. i gave him the tape. "you are doing this music?" he asked, still a bit sceptical perhaps. i said "yes". a week later again, i came back. he said he had listened to the tape, and wanted to make a vinyl 12" with my music. it would be the last 12" of blut records.

why anti-sedative? i thought, and still do, that pop music serves as a sedative, a mental sedative, that keeps the masses dumb and numb and hinders them from uprising and toppling society and reaching utopia. and i thought hardcore techno was the opposite - that made people rebellios and aggressive, and question everything and be critical, makes them "wake up". this was the story behind the name.
the tracks:

a1 starting up

done this in late 1998. can't really say much about the track. it was the speedcore style i liked around that time. 380 bpm i think. the trick here is that i used a special "effect" on the bassdrum after a few second into the track, that gives it an extra punch, well at least i hope so. the rest is quite noisy. i tried to make the screetching sounds as abrasive for the ears as possible.

a2 flatline

this was actually the 3rd finished track i ever did, or so. i think i was 16 at the time i produced it. the name is nicked from neuromancer, where a "flatline" is mentioned as being the fate of cyberpunks who got killed on cyberspace - and have a flatline of the eeg. a dixie flatline character plays an important part in the book too, a human whose conciousness was transfered to a computer system.
the beginning sounds of the track have been described as weird alarm or rave sounds by others, but the intention is of course, to sound like the eeg going flatline. this effect is repeated in the track.
otherwise, i tried to fit as many noizy sounds into the track as possible. there is a bit of a thing which i called the french hardcore thing, which is a change in rhythm structure after 8 basehits, and then back again.
the track actually clocks both at single and double speed, which might not be so visible at first.

a3 disharmonic

one of my first experiments in just intonation and microtuning, after peter gebert of lux nigra intoduced me to that concept. the main melody is not in a western tuning. i had the idea to turn it into more of a techno-sequence in the middle of the track. the breakbeat was an old break i had, that i tried to make sound more metallic. there is a huge pause towards the end, which i added to use it in a live concept, to make people believe that the track has ended, (or the soundsystem broken down), only to be surprised by the onslaught of beats then.

b1 electrocution

hardy wanted "i am god". but by chance, i gave him the wrong track. electrocution instead. when we talked about it he said that this track fits good too, though, so we kept it. electrocution again is one of my earliest tracks. it was an attempt of me doing "hardcore electro", electro as in electrofunk. the thing was i didn't know much of electro at that point, so it sounded completely different. it is the only track, i think, of that period of my music, which uses a melody, even if only 2 different notes for a few seconds.
dj fishead described it as a weird perversion of new wave or so.

b2 sadstep

the moneymaker! well, not really. but it was the track that crept into sets of other people and bought me my first bigger piece of recognition.
i was mildly ridiculed by my friends, because i used a "two step" (or hardstep) rhythm in this track (the name was actually a nod to that), similiar to the amen, that was a definite "no-go" amongst more serious music listeners at that point. to think that decades later still use amen and two-step without batting an eye seems a bit ironic.
again i'm venturing out of standart western tuning here, as the orchestration is "tuned" way different.

b3 neuromancer remix

and again, one of my earlier tracks. this is a remix of knifehandchop's "neuromancer" track, whom i have known from the #gabber channel on IRC back then. i tried to destroy and cut up the tune as much as possible, and used a very cheap and trashy production on this one. the melody at most parts deliberately plays out of loop and rhytms and is sequenced in the wrong way.
again, this was a track lots of people enjoyed and brought me some praise.

the anti-sedative was received well, and i got some positive reviews for it. the initial pressing run was 500 records, which was not a small run for the experimental scene back then.
it was the record i got my first advance, and the first record contract for. i used the tracks of it a lot in my livesets in the later years.

okay, so that was it. maybe you are interested, and want to check out the sound of it.

http://www.discogs.com/Low-Entropy-Anti-Sedative-EP/release/81340

Why Artists Fail

there is a common motion, that the work that an artist does at the beginning - sometimes even unreleased demos, jam sessions, bootlegs - is amongst his most genuis, and it's only a downfall from then. or, artists that created great music for years, suddenly start to suck, and their music is not much welcomed anymore by their core fan base. i have to say that this holds true. a lot of artists lose their spark, sooner or later.
how does it happen? well, i knew many artists, directly, and i've followed many artists, and, actually, it happened to me too. so i knew where the problem is.
artists are individualists. they have to be. they don't like to follow rules. they follow their mind, their own mind. you can see that at the beginning of most artists work, that there is a breaking of former rules, of breaking free, making things different to their contemporaries. they are hated for that at first; but then celebrated for that. for being different. for going their own way. for being themselves. this holds true in rock, in techno, in punk, in any music scene basically.
so, artists tried to break free. eventually they found their way. their own way, as i said. they are now liked for this, and they have a following for that. they often have a clear idea what they did not like in music of others, that was before. certain musical concepts they wanted to change, or new ones they wanted to create. doing music in different speed, rhythm, production. or in a bigger picture, different mood, thought, feel.
it is going fine and well. but then, at one point the following happens. a new conviction, a new thought enters the artists head. that he 'can't do' what he wants. that, he too, has to follow a rule. the rules.
he was celebrated for doing what he wants, not caring about the rest. but now he thinks he cannot do this.
there are various reasons for that. but i would say it just happens. i can't fully explain why this happens.
maybe when i give examples for this, it is clearer what i am trying to say. a rockband might play totally wild, chaotic, punky music. not caring about the conventional sonic rules, and at least trying to abandon then.
but at one point, they to start to adopt the accepted music rules in their music. the common harmonies, melodies, rhythm, lyrical concepts, and such. they feel they can't just play what they want. they feel they to have use the similiar elements, methods that their contemporay bands have.
or in hardcore techno, this was most visible too. so many producers started out as all-out past 200 bpm gabba heads. eventually, they ended up doing the same boring techno-, housestyle music as all the other producers (i don't mean switching to house to be bad. but if you do house as everyone else, it is).
i can also give an example of my own music. when i started making music, i hated that even in hardcore, there was a type of groove, "funk" basically, a focus on the rhythm, on dancing. i hated that. thoroughly. i wanted to make music that was completely not "groovy", undancable. 'moveable to', but not dancable to. movable to in the sense you could've jumped around and shaken to it, but not danced.
but at one point i too felt i "had to" add the 'techno' groove to my music. to make it dancable, to give it a flow, a common rhythm.
i can't say why i though that. but it was there. so i started to get in this groove crap too, and former listeners of my music said how they were annoyed by this change.

this doesn't mean you shouldn't evolve or change. but this is not evolving, but devolving. if you change, change into something new, or rather, change into something of your own design. if you change to do what other people already did, you are not changing, you are conforming.

so this is the problem. artists, at one point, think they "have to" do something. that they "can not" do what they really would like to do. that they have to fit in to a specific style, concepts. that they cannot just leave all rules behind. they that cannot do what *they* want. in *their* own way.

it's tragic; it happens to almost everyone, to the best of us. but, i believe, it's a tendency that can be fought.

How To Create New Forms Of Music

there has been some talk about the stagnation of music lately; also, there has been the opinion that the evolution of music has reached a final stage, and that no new genres, styles, bigger concepts and bigger changes in music are possible anymore. that everything has been their already in some way, and is there, and not much new can come after this present point of music. from a rational point this is of course laughable; and reminds one of those scientists in the middle ages, in the victorian ages, or way before that maybe, who also thought that 'everything was discovered' already, all riddles of the universe solved - only to be disproven by the decades to come. if you think there could be no new musical concepts, genres, fields - this like a man aroun galileo's time thinking that nothing would come anymore after the theory that the sun revolves around the earth, as this is somewhat a "final point" in science.
but it must be said, that the musical evolution has really somewhat stagnated in the 1 or 2 decades. there is no "that" groundbreaking new style or new movement. the music that is listened to these days belongs mostly to categories that are around for more than 20 years already: rock, techno, hiphop... that would've been as if the 60s youth hadn't listened to the doors and jefferson airplane, but only to the same music as their parents, or maybe grandparents, did. no rebellious youth movement in sight! no call for utopia, musically or politically.
this tendency is then somewhat used as a proof that no music of a completely new character is possible anymore. if it was, why didn't it evolve in the last decades?
so what is the truth about this? it is that new music, completely new genres, completely new concepts, are very much possible, they are definately possible. and they are actually not hard to come by with. a new music movement could easily be created.
okay, so how does one arrive at new music?
easy. just use your mind. your ability to reason. think of how new music could be possible, how new music would be. analyse it, reflect it, ponder on it. or, more exactly: try to think of what wasn't there before. what defines the music that has been around? what could be done elsewise? what would be "new"? what was overlooked so far? what has not been tried out yet?
and, more exactly, you will see that most music so far has followed rules; and a lot of them have not been broken that much yet; get rid of the rules and you can create new music as easy drinking a glass of water.
and, even more exactly, these are for example the rhytms and time signatures, that are beeing followed rigidly so far. there are not much techno tracks with a 7/9 rhythm, yes? or that slow down and speed up while they play? now, 7/9 techno would not that be of a complete "new genre". but it would be already a nice change. this was just exploring one concept - the rhythm - and the rest stayed the same, which is why it's not that groundbreaking yet. get rid of all, or most rules - and the new sound is there.
look at all concepts in music. reflect them, criticise them, change them, move ahead from then. then you have new music.
so, the question is, when the evolution, or revolution of music is done as "easily" - be sure, the task might harder than it looks - why, oh why, has it not been done already? are all producers stupid or what. no, they are not stupid. but after the last revolution in music; with genres like techno, rave, hardcore, ambient, there has been a massive anti-intellectual current in the music scenes. *thinking* of musical concepts, intellectualizing music, analysing it and reflecting it is seen as highly suspicious. there is a current that music must not be intellectual, but emotional, physical, for dancing, for feelings, and not food for your heads, for the intellect. it should be said that emotion, "fun", and partying is not contradictionary in essence, to the contrary. techno was intellectual music at first, and it made a million ravers go nuts on the dancefloor.
so, yes, the move right now is that music should be "emotional", as in indie pop ballads about sad, sad topics of life(i use sarcasm here), or pre-cut formula based house music that is for "partying" or "clubbing" and dancing. that is not reflected or intellectual.
but, this is where the change begins. music has to be intellectual in origin, in intention, in mode again. it has to be smart again.
so, start your head, feed your mind, think, debate, question, criticse. and new music will come to you easily.

The Closedness Of Possibilities

when listening to music of various decades, i can't help to feel that there is somewhat of a gap somewhere around 1980. there is a lack of vision, or maybe not that, as there was quite some experimentation - but the creativity, to most part, doesn't feel as bright anymore, and more importantly, there is a lack of freedom. both directly - think of the improvised, jammed electronic krautrock of the 70s, without time signatures, without set rules, and the overly sequenced, pinned to a straight formula, electronics of the 80s. but also in expression, in feeling, in emotion. but this is not also in society. could've been the resistance of the 60s and 70s still be possible in the 80s? utopian ideas hit the youth in the 60s, and they were convinced by it, and ventured out, wanted to go beyond the straight path, the given society, the given circumstances. and their minds were free enough to know the truth of this. who could still dream of a utopian society in the 80s? who still worked for revolution - and deemed it possible? of course there were some - probably more as in the 2000 decade. but nothing compared to the 60s.
in the 80s, society as it is, with capitalists and yuppies and consumer goods, and government and cops and restrictions and boredom, exceeding boredom, was more or less accepted by the majority. they think they "knew" life, the world, went like this, and no change was possibilty. people hadn't the creativity, the imagination, the free intellect anymore, to envision, conceive a different society, a different life, a different world.
the possibilites of life, of society, of the world, had been closed. but not by laws or a police force or the military. but in imagination, in the heads of people, in their minds. for utopia is always a possibility, at least for your own life - but their ideas, of "how the world was and is always gonna be" had been fixed in their heads, unchangable.
of course this didn't just go for social change and utopia. everything became more strict, frozen, solid. as shows, to me, in the music too, where the freedom of expression and breaking down of all rules was replaced with very fixed, rigid musical structures again.
even in the realm of pop, the music of the 70s felt more free than the computerized, sequenced, numb pop of the 80s.
which does of course not mean that wonderous music works or ideas could not be found in the 80s too; but they became rare and their quality changed.
this is not a straight progression either; in the 90s, in the ambient experiments, parts of industrial metal and rock music, in all the techno genres, this freedom came back; experimentation was possible anymore, and the breaking of rules. yet the rules were never as abandonded as in 2 and 3 decades before the 90s. yet there was a feel of freedom again, and of utopia, and the rave, techno, trance subculture clang to a lot of utopian ideals in their beginning, if not as outright political as it would have been preferable, maybe.
during the end of the 90s, with the first decade of the 2000s, the closedness of possibilites became more total than ever. the utopia of rave was gone. music became more pre-designed, formula-based, pre-cut, factorylike created as ever before. with 1000s of mindless mainstream pop tunes being churned out that felt more soulless and similiar than ever before. oh, that doesn't mean that pop in the 70s or 60s was necessarily a honest business. but it was not as imprisoning for the mind as the music became after 2000s.
and, again, as these things are connected, the same happened on a social and cultural scale too. it was the time i ventured into the real world anarchist scenes. even these anarchists didn't believe in revolution or change anymore. maybe, maybe, in a century ahead. but not anytime soon, not a possibility in one's experienced life.
and it was the time the "standard life" was prescribed for the masses, beat down deeply into their minds; having a "good job", a house, a wive, two-three kids. basing ones life on consumer goods; the best car, the best TV set, the best electronic toys. not being a rebel, not rising up, not venturing for utopia. and almost anyone fell for this. imagination had been limited once again.
and, capitalist society, even though it's crisises were more visible before, was now accepted as a total fact, unfightable, unchangable. 'society was like this, and ever will be like this'. 'you have to accept the world as it is'. the freedom of the minds of people, to conceive of a different world, a different life, a different society, was gone. they only accepted the world as it was presented a million times over and over again by the mindnumbing mass media. no exploration of different ways possible anymore.
now it's 2014, and just like in the 90s, things seem to change once again. the minds of people seem to be more active, more free again. there is a new interest in anarchy, in anarchism and utopia, as i mentioned elsewhere. new social models and lifepaths are debated again.
also the music seems to be more free again. seems to have more vision again. yet, the test if this holds true for me is, and should always be, how "rules" in music are treated. if rules in music are fixed and followed and "have to be" followed, a freedom of the mind is not possible. same goes for society. so let's see how the attitutde towards rules goes along.
i could very well imagine we are heading for utopia again. let's hope it's true.

Taking Techno Seriously

there was a time when, at least by "serious" people, anything that was not academic music, classical compositions were not taken seriously. surely, cheap fun for the plebs, but not comparable to any of the great maestros! you could enjoy them, but please don't analyse them.
this his changed a lot - extremely - in the last decades. the barriers between "serious" and "entertaining" music have been ripped down. by bands who combined both approaches, but also by public opinion. i still remember a time when everything "pop" has been sneered at by intellectuals. the experimental rock of the 70s might have been the first that got the blessing and the acknwoledgement that in such noisy, emotional, touching music could actually be a lot to analyse, to interpret, to ponder on. the next thing was that also pop albums have become the focus of serious attention. pop is no longer seen as purely entertainment music, but also having the ability to have serious musical merits - and cultural, philosophical too. even the dreaded eye of academic research now often looks at rock, pop, even hiphop, metal, punk records and culture. some of the later development was that disco and dance music got the "credibility card" and are taken serious now.
but there is one thing that is still overlooked. techno, rave, gabber, hardcore, of the 90s and later. this music, by the vast majority, is still seen as childish, immature - pure hedonistic trash to many. and to me, it was never like that. techno always felt mature and serious and deep and meaningful - being no lesser hedonistic and fun and ecstatic at the same time, mind you. so, my wish would be that slowly people would start to realise, that the same serious approach, the pondering and interpretation and worship, that is done to the famous rock and pop albums in the moment, could one day arrive at the important techno albums and EPs. that people realise that techno doesn't have to be cheaply produced music for dimwits.
and indeed, in techno, rave, hardtrance, some of the most complex and clever and intelligent production i encountered so far can be found. techno has so many philosophical, cultural, social, political connections; hints; ideas; thoughtsets (one idea of mine is that one of the reasons techno never had an outspoken political stance as such is that it was simply too complicated to express it in this way; and easier to express sonically). one can deep digger at techno, one can find so many things. there is plenty of stuff to activate ones mind on, to think about. this is the shame; that techno was not seen as the serious, deep music it is - until yet. i have a feeling this might change soon. but, also keep in mind, it is hedonistic and fun at the same time.

Techno - Needs More Synthetics

in the last years i probably listened less to electronics and techno than to rock and other genres. this was because i was looking for a certain "earthy" quality in music, that for example 70s heavy metal had, or funk had, or hip hop had. to listen to music, that feels groovy, "funky", makes you want to dance and to move. i noticed that techno could have that quality too; detroit comes to mind; the proto-detroit of cybotron. the early acidhouse and rave around 88-92. the techno i used to love as a teen; the hardtrance, and complex techno recordings of the mid 90s, became bland too me. the sound sounded so plastic to me; the synth, the drums, everything, even the basslines. completely different to the "funk" of early house. it felt so artificial, so synthetic.
now, this has turned the opposite direction for me. the "synthetic" quality of hardtrance and rave productions of mid 90s is very fascinating for me; the way to go. when it is done intentionally, it is great; to make music of pure logic, purely artificial, abstract - not "earthy" in any way! i noticed there is more music that has that quality to me; electronic krautrock of the 70s (also, paradoxicall, at the same time, very earthy). chiptunes. amiga .mod music.
also, of course the experimental hardcore of the mid to late 90s was like that, an all out attack on anything funky groove. for me it is the way to go for the future. need more synthetics! pure abstraction.

Right Wing Tendencies

there is a worrying growth of the right, especially the extreme right in europe right now (the date is mid 2014). i think this ties in, a lot, to what i said elsewhere, the growing chasm of people following ideals, and those who do not. as there is also a second thing to this tendency, to this chasm. which is the all-out assault against the mind, the intellect, the capability to think, to reason, to imagine, that is going on now, that become total somewhen around the year 2000. how does this tie in to the rise of the right? because, in the end, all their positions, all their moving, comes down to this. don't think, don't reason, don't criticise, don't questions. it is seen in their stance about gender issues, homosexuality and such, for example. to them, a man is a man, a woman is a woman, a man "dates" only a woman, and so in. so is it to them, so was it always to them. now what freaks them out that people have started to think about this. and started to question, to debate, to talk. about gender, about sexuality. and this scares them beyond belief. that people use their mind about the question of gender now. or rather, that people use their mind at all, to this extent. so they want that gender is accepted "as it was" and is not debated, not intellectually addressed, not thought about.
the same, in a different way, is about the concept of "races", ethnics and such. for them it is like this: "whites" were always superior, the others lesser. do not question this! do not think about it! do not *think*. keep it this way. also, this anti-intellectualism ties in in another way with racism. which is that there has been a 180 degree change in racist ideology, which obviously has not been noticed by many yet. the racism of the past was build around the idea that the "other races" were of inferior intellect, the white of superior intellect. "dumb niggers", "not good for anything". now it is the total opposite: they are afraid of "arabs", of "gypsies", of "blacks", because they think that they hide something that the "liberals" don't see; that they are cunning, sticking together, developing secret plans, to undermine society, moral, ethics. essentially, what the racists are now implying, but not saying or realising, is that "whites" are dumber than the other "races". it is always portrayed in a way that there is a society of "whites", who are simple-minded but honest in intentions, who do not realise the too-clever plan of the "arabs" or the "jews" or the "blacks" yet to undermine everything yet. (in regard of jews this was actually part of the "old fashioned" racism too; but it is new for different "ethnics"). it's obvious that this is part of a wider anti-intellectualism - the "arab" who has a too clever plan and is therefore to be feared but fought against.
we have covered, sexuality and "ethnicity" yet; it should be easy to see how the other right wing tendencies are anti-intellectual in origin too.
and yes, this is the big thing, the big problem; the all-out war that is going on against intellectuality, against the mind and the ability to think, in almost every aspect of society in the moment; in art; in politics; in culture. it is a worrying, dangerous tendency. but it is time that those who find themselves at the other side of this conflict, to stand up and struggle for their cause too.

It Doesn't Matter

i talked about the difference between the ideal, the ideas, and the tangible, the direct in quite some texts now, and how they are - basically - irreconcilable. but this has some further consequences; on your person. because in our society, the worth of a person is estimated by the tangible, direct things he has; his job, money, social standing, luxury, power, fame. but this is not important. it doesn't matter. what matters is the mind of a person, his emotions, his feelings, his creativity, his thoughts. it doesn't matter if someone is homeless, or a junkie, or a loner, or disabled, or a freak, or a crimimal. this doesn't take away your worth. this doesn't take away your beauty. if you have beautiful thoughts, wonderful emotions, if you are honest, then you are worthy, then you are wealthy, no matter what your surroundings are, no matter if you are the worst loser on planet earth. well, yes, these things "do" matter; but not to your worth, not to your beauty. life is more enjoyable if you are not homeless or sick. but again, it doesn't take your own, self, personal worth away.
in the end it gets even farther than that; because the worth is not defined, in the end, by your thoughts or personality either. *every* human is beautiful, at his heart and as himself. every one is wonderful, everyone is great. and nothing, nothing ever could take your beauty away. and basically, most of the problems you face, are because you have forgotton this, that nothing, no circumstance, no action, no event, could take your beauty away. if you could see your beauty as it is, your problems would go away within a short time.

The Distribution Of Wealth

in capitalist society, and logic, in theory wealth is given, and moves towards those, who are the most skilled, intelligent, industrious, work hard and are clever enough to know how to become rich. defenders of capitalism explains this with a type of circular logic, which in itself is already insane enough to be laughed at. they say more or less something like this: "those who work hard become rich and those who are rich are those who worked hard". "if someone is a millionare, he must've worked hard - because if he didn't work hard, how did he become rich?" that's basically their logic. it reminds one somewhat of the logic of religious fanatics - "if he is a prophept, people would flock to him, and as we all flock to him, he has to be a prophet!", but let's take things from another side now. let us assume it is correct. then this would still be false. let us assume, that those who know how to use the market system, who are clever, know how to gain power, have skills for this, have some leadership skills, and such, are clever and so on, are the ones that get rich, get all the wealth. this would still pose a problem. as these are skills, abilities, on how to gain tangible things - wealth, power, luxury. but this is not what life should be about. life shouldn't be about the ability to acquire the must luxury, the most social esteem. it should be about devolopling your mental skills, your emotions, your morality, your ethics. your behavior, your knowledge - your goodwill. about good deeds, helping other humans, doing good to them. *this* is what should be rewarded - not the ability to acquire a million dollars. the homeless man, who got thrown off his lifepath by an accident, but never did any soul harm in life would much more deserve the money and the fame of a millionaire, who ruined the lifes of a thousand people by his questionable business practices. people in the thousands should rather listen to this homeless man, than to the seminars and speeches by a reckless businessman who promises them to be rich too.
but not only that; the conception of wealth is itself screwed. because true wealth is not money, is not fast cars, is not a luxurxy apartment; it is wealth of the mind, of the heart. to be kind, to be honest, to be helpful. and to be insightful, to be thoughtful. this is real, deep, honest wealth. a poor man, who has made peace with himself and the world, is a million times more wealthy than a billionaire who is haunted by stress and nightmares.
in the past; society still respected that. "philosophers" and "wise men", who left their homes and belongings, and lived a modest life - often living on the streets, or in caves - were amongst the most adored by the people; as they had mental wealth, "wealth" of the heart. only in our society, this is largely forgotten.
yet, it is still true.

Revolution and Reaction

human society seems to always have been driven by two forces, those of revolution and reaction. those who set out to change it, and those that tried to keep everything at it is. this is already a quite massive concept; yet i think it goes even farther, even deeper than that. it would be wrong, in my opinion, to just say that those of the reaction just want to "keep things", and also not those of the revolution to "change things"; just not progress and stillstand. there is something more. this is where the focus of the revolution lies.
most people's life, theyir whole life, resolves around things they know, and those are direct, tangible, obvious. their job, their home, their boss, their goverment and so on. things they know, that they can see, "touch", at least theorethically. that's the life they know, how it has always been. now, the revolutionary has something different. he set's out to change this; but this is not his main motor. the important thing is what he focuses on. and these are, ideals, ideas, theories, concepts, thoughts, vision, imagination, creativity, dreams. he has an idea, like justice, like freedom, like equality, like creativity. and this is where the reactionary and the revolutionary part. because this idea is not part of the tangible, familiar world that the reactionary knows. it does not lie in his job, his city, his government, his authorities, as he knows it. as it is an idea, not something tangible, not something you can see face to face, that you can encounter. and this is what scares reactionaries so deeply, and makes them more afraid as if their whole country would light up in flames, or if they would be chased in a forest by a thousand wolves. that there are ideas, ideals, concepts that are not just "tangible" - that are ideal, utopian, different, pure, honest. because the existance of this gives them a deep fear. for them, what is tangible, direct, is what is "holy" to them, so to say. the goverment - as it is. the family - as it is. the nation - as it is. that an utopian nation, a utopian society, a utopican community could exist, that is based not on "what is", but on ideas, theories, is something they can not take. because this means there is more than to what they know - not what they encounter every idea, but what goes beyond this - ideals, utopian thoughts, dreams.
the revolutionary, on the other hand, doesn't care about what is tangible. how "things are", and about which is said they they "always been this way and always will be". he cares about dreams and visions.
and he rightly does so. because what is ideal, in ideas, is much much important, much more pure and impressive than the world "as it is".
thus, the revolutionary and the reactionary can never meet, and thus society will swing each centuries between these focal points; until one day, maybe, utopian revolution will win over.

Living Without Facebook

living without facebook is a bit like hiding in a basement while a hurricane is going down outside. there seems to be a lot happening on facebook, quite the storm, but what it is you don't know. it's funny how almost nothing spills out of facebook. everything facebook is contained in itself. sometimes i wonder what is happening on facebook, but it just passes, and tomorrow never knows. sometimes i discover artists i like on sites like soundcloud, youtube etc, and then am surprised that others already know them all; probably they connected through facebook. but i am not sure. anyway, it is a weird situation. hope the facebook virus passes one day.

Mission Statement

there is a certain objective, goal to my music in the moment. what is this goal? well i'm doing for music for almost two decades now, and i noticed there is a kind of maturing to the sound, the purpose, when you are in it for so long. when i started, i tried to experiment, try everything out, without really knowing where i would venture. right now i am more interested in a bigger picture to my music. in things, that are just not adding sounds or concepts in an almost random fashion - although this has its pros too, of course, and i guess i will venture there again soon. so my approach right now is not just thinking of things like, adding a rock guitar to a breakbeat or finding the most weird sample sources and such.
one of the main, the biggest influences on all music was, at least in its first period, which ran along 1997-2004 basically, was progressive rock, psychedelic experimental rock. the "epic" rock songs with their stunning lengths and solos in the 60s and 70s. not because i like rock so much - i hated rock, i hated e-guitars from the bottom of my heart. this felt so backwards. but it is obviously some of the most complex, complicated, intellectual music made in the last century. i am not sure one could find music of this complexity - before the rise of techno - in any other genre, that is not academic in origin. only jazz also comes to my mind (maybe there is more - i am not an expert of this).
so this was always there and a backing setting for my own music, which was far away from rock in any other sense, as it was purely digital, sample driven and such.
now, with this maturing of ideas, and with looking for perspectives, i thought about furthering this connection even more. to make a style of music, that is a connection of psychedelic rock and techno music.
this was an idea that seemed weird enough for me. because, at first glance, these styles are so far apart from each other - the "real" instrument jamming and the preprogrammed digital world of techno. it seemed like a task big enough and complex enough to be interesting.
also, what made it attractive to me, is that noone else does this right now. well, i am sure there are people - i seen it on soundcloud - but even my friends don't produce it that way. 95% of producers don't do it. because techno is now at a point where it's preprogrammed, preplanned, completely synthetic, completely digital, with softsynths and all and complex sequencing programs.
i wanted to get completely away from that. from sequenced music, from programmed music. to not create techno tracks - but to create techno jam sessions, spontanous, chaotic, random, improvised.
this also brings us to the third point. techno is not like it yet - but techno used to be that way. the early outings of acid house, and i think of detroit too, are much more closer to the rock sessions of the 70s than to the presequenced techno of today. keep in mind that even kraftwerk, the so-called (really?) pioneers of "techno" arose out of the psychedelic jam rock scene of germany.
if you listen to my tracks you might note that, yes, there are sequences too in them. but i liked this paradox. i liked  this idea. i wanted to combine these seeemingly opposites. to make mathematic music, but yes, also to have it improvised at the same time. to improsive mathematic formulas on the go, if you will.
nostalgia plays a role too, maybe, but i don't seem it important. i just liked the approach, the complexity of experimental rock of those decades. and the spaciness too, of course.
so, after i made the decision to venture down that road i had to figure out how to put in a praxis. how could i jam with my sequencer program and the pre-programmed sounds, or rather, how could i jam them, block them, to create beautiful unordered things. well, i came up with some ideas eventually. i simply... ah, not the time to spill my artistic beans here just yet. it will have to remain a secret for now.
of course, i don't dare to say i succeeded with my task. maybe this music doesn't live up to expectations. but maybe this is also not the point. to music in generally.
but, hey, at least i tried, eh?

you can hear some of the sounds of this 'project' in my mixes:

Low Entropy - Techno Mix http://www.mixcloud.com/low_entropy/low-entropy-techno-mix-2014/
Low Entropy - Dark Hardcore mix http://www.mixcloud.com/low_entropy/low-entropy-dark-hardcore-mix-futuristic-hardcore/
Low Entropy - Doomtechno Mix http://www.mixcloud.com/low_entropy/doomtechno-mix-80-126-bpm/

How Critical Debate Is Prevented

recently i noticed there are several methods that are often occur in debates, discussion, dialogues, when it comes to questioning things of the status quo, of capitalism, of "free market" society, of western society.
some of them are pretty intricate and seem clever - and convincing - at first, but when one understands them it is easy to see through them.

1. "it's complicated."

you hate to hear it in a relationship, and i hate it in debates too. when one critices the goverment, corporations, social problems, certain laws or actions, people react: 'oh, but you can't see it all black and white. there is more to it. it is more complicated. there is no easy solution. you have to see it from all sides.'
this brings us to the core problem underlying these "intellectual" methods: that those who use it take sides themselves, well the whole point of them bringing up is to take sides. the same conservatives who pull the "it's complicated" card when animal rights or fighting misogyny is brought up, do not find it is "complicated" when the issue is war, or police force, or the free market.
when you ask them if the police is necessary in a modern society, they won't say "not sure - it's complicated" they give a hearty, biased, dumb "yes" without trying to see this "from all sides" themselves. same when asking them if capitalism is necessary.

2. "do we know anything at all?"

while this might mostly occur to a stoner listening to a psyrock song, it is also used by conservatives of all walks of life in any conversations. 'you anarchists, you leftists think you are on the right side. but what is really 'right'? how can you be sure? can anyone truly say know he is 'right'?' similiar issues are addressed on wether one is fighting for a "good" cause or not. 'maybe the good of the anarchists is the bad for the others', and such. while it is necessary to questions ones own defintion of right and good now and then, generally getting lost in this is a cause of phiosophical bullshitits. really it's a case for high schoolers on their first acid trip, to wonder if we ever find out what is "good" or "true". you should not fall to social inactivity just because others doubt the answer. fight for your causes, if it's a good cause!
similiar, the taking sides phenomen is here of course too, as the conservatives who question the goodwill of the anarchists don't doubt the goodwill of the "brave" politicians-idiots and generals who run western countries and declare war on innocent nations.

3. "isn't everything the same?"

if you didn't think conservatives have the minds of people who went the wrong road with LSD, now you can be sure. after raising the question "do we know anything at all" we get "isn't everything the same". 'you leftradicals seem to quite like the rightwing radicals in your fanaticism, didn't this occur to you? isn't left and right really similiar? can you be sure? are you not the very thing you are fighting against?'. again, a severe case of philosophical bullshit dilemma. no, the left is not like the right, anarchists are not fascists, radical feminists are very different from radical male chauvinists. yes, it should be noted that one should not become the enemy oneself - it's funny this worry is raised by people who already very much "the enemy" themselves - but again this should not lead to the point of a philosphical wormhole, where everything is "somehow" the same and everything can be exchanged, yadda yadda.

4. rationalisation

this is the method that is mostly often used. the thing is, you can rationalise everything. eating humans to solve the world hunger problem? people could find rationalisations for that. total surveillance? yes some find pros for that. so, for everything the status quo does a rationalisation can be found.
this method might be the hardest to fight. but it is also very easy to see through, as the rationalisation is used for any thing *of* the status quo, but for nothing that is against it.
you can find a lot of people who use rationalisation when a policeman uses unlawful force on a youth. yet the same people won't rationalise it if the same youth uses "unlawful force" on some yuppie. yet there could be a lot of rationalisation found for this too; if only that he was hungry and needed the money to get some food.
but you will never see people apply this rationalisation, yet constantly trying to find of reasons and logic to defend everything of the status quo.
the "taking sides" is very easy to see here, and this enables one to see through this tactic.

there were some tacticts the conversative and reactionaries, who seem to be everywhere these days, use to defend the status quo, to defend western society and it's misdeeds and problems. maybe these hints can help you to see through these methods.

The Lost Treaure: .Mod Music

before the internet, there was the BBS scene. it is more or less unknown by now; what was it? basically, you had a modem, not a modern cable modem but one that could only send a few kilobytes per second. and with that you could connect to a BBS with other users; think of it as a webpage that had blocky 4
color graphics and chat, downloads, forums and other things, but you could only use one at a time and a download could take 1 hour in which you can not
use the computer. this was where the .mod scene strived. mods were and are tracks, songs, made by a tracker; they had two parts, the samples and the
sequences of the songs. which means that everyone could remix a mod he downloaded with direct access to all the samples and melodies, and this was encouraged. the BBS scene was huge; a large city could have literally hundreds of BBSes, and the .mod scene was huge too, and is still largely ignored, or just not known, by now. it was composed of enthusiasts from all walks of life who made music on their tracker programs and shared it for free. mods were uploaded as single files, as releases such as compilations, or used in so called "demos" (visual and auditive programs that showed the possibilites of computer graphics or told a story), and other things. they were also used in computergames and the largest part of, for example, amiga computergame tunes in that era were based on mod music. .mods came in all styles; techno, electro, jungle, industrial, dark ambient, "rock", hiphop - you name it. and they had many genres that only existed in the mod world, including the typical mod sound.
and amongst this is some of the most exciting, brilliant, creative, genius and genuine music i ever heard; i was disappointed with most "known" musical genres a few years ago, and when i rediscovered computer mods, it felt so fresh, so exciting, so new.
they have qualites that i found nowhere, or rather, seldomly in any other music.
what is so exciting about mods is hard to tell; check them out for yourself; it would be something to explore. i think it is largely because it is some of the most abstract music ever made. to me, it is more abstract than most experimental electronics i know. it is purely logical, technological, digital computer music made by pure nerds. this might not sound exciting, but trust me, it is.
one problem with the current lack of recognition of mod music is well, that they are enticingly cheesy often. there are very dark and sombre mod tunes; in fact there are mods i consider some of the darkest music i know. yet, let's face it, most are more a happy trip. the constant major chords and pitched up vocal sounds. yet, lately, people have started to look through the cheesiness of pop music and came to appreciate it; couldn't the same be done with mods? the seemingly happy sound doesn't feel out of place; it too feels synthetic and abstract.
so, yes, as i said, what stunned me was the amount of creativity and energy that was put into these tunes. there are harmonic strcuctures, rhythm structures, i rarely seen elsewhere. it is one of most creative examples of the use of sample based music.
just like videogame music has seen a surge of interest and serious appreciation in the last years, i think in the next years, or decade, the popularity for mod music might rise significantly too. be sure to check it out; there is so much wonderful music to be found.