around the year 2000, i made one of the biggest mistakes of my live. this itself might not be remarkable, or rather, not interesting to others, if not almost the whole western world, plus or minus a few years, would have made the same mistake.
so what was this problem?
like many young people in the 20th century, i had chosen to pursuit a whole range of lofty ideals in my youth. anarchism, utopia, revolution, a free world, full of justice and wisdom and of adventure. and like many before me, as i grew older, this turned into disillusion and disappointment. the ideals that seemed so close - "we can have a revolution next year!" - suddenly seemed so far away, unreachable. now for most this would be the point where they said goodbye to rebellion and ideals, reject the former ideas and become conversative, or "neutral". to forget about all this.
yet i took a different path, that others went before me too, if not many, though, and that i already had read hinted at by some authors and thinkers.
i took up the question: why was i not be able to reach the ideals and societal goals, that seemed so good?
the answer, for me, was, that they were mere *thoughts*; ideals, concepts. not something of real life, of the everyday life, but philosophies, abstract, far away, "above" the actual world.
so the solution was clear to me: i must have to get rid of all the ideals; the philosophies, the abstract thoughts; of utopia; and strive to achieve the wonderful, the dangerous, the adventurous, in the real world, in real life.
now this still seems like a gargantuan task; so i tried to set my goals so, that i could still "beat the whole world" and go out to adventure, yet that they were still seemingly attainable and - sort of, or rather: for want of a better word - "limited" enough that i could reach them.
now, again, this was a way, probably countless, others had set out to walk on aswell.
i wish i had failed with this task. it would have been much more easier and less painful if i did.
not that i managed to succeed in all of this; in many ways i failed.
but i reached my dreams. or rather, i did not at all. i managed to attain the "dream"-like goals that i had set out for in real life.
and this was the complete error of my doings.
because, now that i had what i wanted, it felt pointless. it felt useless. i felt cheated and disappointed. i didn't mean so much anymore. also it felt so much different to what i had "dreamed" of (even though, basically, it was exactly that). the dreams somehow felt distorted, destroyed by reality. or rather, by being real.
so what has this do with the "rest of the world", that you hinted at at the beginning, you might ask?
because this is what everyone else seems to do this days. it is now the beginning of 2014, and i am judging from how everyone behaved in the last years. people no longer follow lofty ideals, concepts, utopias, dreams. they want material things, and they want them now. cars, money, luxury, power, success. they too make the error to think something in the "everyday" world could make them happy and fulfilled. they too are no longer interested in the abstract ideals of the visionaries - quite literally, if you play them a speech from a 60s movement thinker, or another idealist political leader, they would probably give you a painful expression on the face. they want something solid and concrete, and they want it now.
so what was the error i actually made, and the world does make. where did i go wrong, where do we go wrong?
the ideals, the utopias, the wonderful world was correct. the error was to turn these *ideas* into something tangible, of everyday world. this destroyed the ideas and the dream. these are thoughts, after all. and thoughts should stay thoughts.
ideals and beauty, visions of adventures, stay wonderful and keeps you warm - if you keep them as thoughts, and value them as thoughts and worship them as thoughts. if you try to turn them inside out by making them "conrete", "common" - to realise them, you will destry them.
a realised ideal is no longer an ideal. it is reality. and reality, as we know, is boring.
society needs to stop aspiring cars, money, power, success, luxury above everything else.
society as a whole needs to go back to valuing dreams, fantasy, ideas - utopias. to realise how important these things are, and how important it is to support them. to realise how wonderful these things are.
Buchtip: Ursula Le Guin - Planet Der Habenichtse (Anarchistische Sci-Fi)
als ich in die anarchistische szene kam, war Planet Der Habenichtse schon ein klassiker. nicht nur, dass es einer der wenigen anarchistischen romane (im gegensatz zu theoretischen und anderen sachbüchern) ist, sonder einer der weniger anarchistischen scifi-geschichten die es überhaupt gibt.
das buch wurde 1974 veröffentlich und von Ursula Le Guin geschrieben.
in dem buch gibt es zwei gesellschaftliche systeme und planeten. der eine planet ist mit unserer gesellschaft vergleichbar, es gibt dort kapitalistische länder, sowie totalitäre und andere. auf dem nachbarplaneten lebt eine anarchistische gesellschaft. dort versuchen die menschen, ohne herrschaft, ungleichheit und hierarchien zu leben. während der erstere planet jedoch mäßigen reichtum und fortschritt hat, herscht auf dem anarchistischen planet grösstenteils armut und er ist bei weitem nicht so technisch entwickelt.
die handlung des buchs handelt von einem genie, der eine geniale wissenschaftliche entdeckung gemacht hat. auf seinem heimatplaneten - dem anarchistischen - fühlt er sich jedoch nicht möglich seine theorie und entdeckung zu vollenden, weswegen er auf den ersteren planet reist. man sollte noch erwähnen, dass beide gesellschaftssysteme zutiefst verfeindet sind und nur durch eine art friedensabkommen kein krieg zwischen beiden planeten herscht, wodurch die ausreise zu dem planeten sich als schwierig erweist.
als anarchist, anarchistisch aufgewachsen und durch und durch anarchistisch, erweist sich sein leben jedoch zutiefst beschwerlich auf dem hierarchischen planeten.
soweit zur handlung. über die eindeutige wichtigkeit des buches habe ich ja oben schon berichtet. wer anarchist ist, für den ist das buch sicherlich interessant - auch weil er aufzeigt, wie eine wirklich anarchistische gesellschaft im detail und "in wirklichkeit" aussehen kann. science fiction fans, die den scifi der 60er und 70er jahre mögen, also sowas wie philip k. dick oder john brunner, könnten das buch auch sehr interessant finden.
mir persönlich gefielen einige sachen an dem buch nicht, z.B. die darstellung einiger sozialen strukturen in der anarchistischen gesellschaft, oder auch andere sachen. einer meiner hauptkritikpunkte war, dass für mich zu sehr die botschaft gesendet wird, dass die anarchisten zwar bitterarm sind, aber eben deswegen glücklich - eben "planet der habenichtse", was mich ein bißchen an die kirchliche demutsbotschaft erinnerte und auch etwas so rüberkommt. gleichzeitig ist aber grade dass, denke ich, eine der kernaussagen des buches, nämlich, ungenau ausgedrückt, daß schon besitz und "haben wollen" hierarchie, oder besser, unglücklichkeit beinhaltet.
in der tat scheint das buch zu einem grossen, oder zumindest zu einem wesentlichen teil, tiefere, "philosophische" sinnfragen und gedanken zu behandeln, die über die "anarchistische politik" hinausgehen. diese aber gleichzeitig mit der realen anarchistischen gesellschaft, den menschen, ihrem umfeld und der welt zu verknüpfen, was ich für eine sehr wichtige, oder bahnbrechende sache halte (viele "philosophischen" werke machen das ja grade eben nicht).
ansonsten sind auch einige sehr schöne stellen in dem buch, an den monolog des wissenschaftlers an eine kapitalistische festgesellschaft über "die mauer" denke ich oft gerne zurück.
trotz meiner kritik halte ich das buch für ein sehr empfehlswertes buch.
hier noch ein zitat, das vielleicht einen guten eindruck von dem buch vermittelt.
„Wir sind Teilende, nicht Besitzende. Wir sind nicht wohlhabend. Keiner von uns ist reich. Keiner von uns ist mächtig. Wenn ihr Anarres wollt, wenn es die Zukunft ist, die ihr sucht, dann sage ich euch, daß ihr mit leeren Händen kommen müßt. Ihr müßt allein kommen, und nackt, wie das Kind in die Welt, in seine Zukunft kommt, ohne Vergangenheit, ohne Besitz, ganz und gar von anderen Leuten abhängig, um zu leben. Ihr könnt nicht nehmen, was ihr nicht gegeben habt, und ihr müßt euch selbst geben. Ihr könnt die Revolution nicht kaufen. Ihr könnt die Revolution nicht machen. Ihr könnt nur die Revolution sein. Sie ist in euch, oder sie ist nirgends.“
Social Networks And Delay Effects
delay, echo and reverb are some of the most important effects in music, often the effects that define the whole feel of a song, or even a genre. (Krautrock, New Wave, Shoegaze without these effects? impossible). it is actually one of the most basic and simple effects, compared to some of the more complex forms to process music. yet for literally decades, it was quite tricky to create before the advent of digital sound procession. basically what you have to do is to take part of the audio of a track, loop it (play it again) with slowly (or faster) fading volume each time. when perfoming live, the room the band plays in automatically adds reverberation to the sound. but how to recreate this with electric or electronic equipment? engineers came up with all kinds of adventurous solution to this... from reverb "spirals" and echo "plates" to tape delay effect units, which were amongst the most logical and most consequential solutions back in these days. but all these were far from being perfect. they could neither fully reproduce the sound as it was intended, nor the natural ambiance of a real room. often even change in temperature while perfoming would alter the sound slightly, or even more. they often had an artificial, outerwordly sound to them.
with digital sound processing, all these seemingly problems were over. a sound program, or workstation, or plugin could take a 100% copy of a sound and 100% correctly repeat it in echo and delay.
now, seemingly, all was well.
yet people started to realise that something was wrong. yes, the sound was perfect. but exactly because of this, it suddenly felt cold. dry. it has lost its sparkle. so a lot of people went back to the analog reverb units, especially those using it for their bands, but also people in the analog electronic music field.
it turned out that the imperfect, artificial, often low in frequency feel of the early reverb units was actually what added a lot of magic to the songs. it stood out. it gave the music a spacey feel. an otherworldly attribute.
the early sound of new wave and postpunk are unthinkably without the specialness of analog reverb. same goes for the krautrock of the 70s. or the rock'n'roll of the 50s. the outer world looped "woo!" shouted echos of the rocknroll singers that spiralled into psychedelia made up a large part of the impact of this type of music (note: for rock'n'roll, often even more "primitive" methods were seemingly used: the bands just played in large empty buildings during recordings, like farm silos).
the disadvantage was the advantage. the problem was the solution. that the units recreated the sounds imperfectly was the biggest plus. it was the whole point of them.
now on to social networks. before the advent of the internet and social networks, if you had a, let's say, strange taste in music, culture or politics, it was hard for you to find likeminded people. to reach out and get in contact with the others. to attain the music you like. to find out more information. to get fanzines or books if they were available.
now with social networks, this is wholly different. you can reach out to thousand of people. find dozens of new songs everyday. find every info about every band you ever want. see their concert videos or their studio work.
seemingly, this is good. but just like the example with the digital reverb units. it killed the magic. it made a lot of things disappear.
because that you had to *struggle* if you had a different or more sophisticated taste or point of view was the whole point. it was what made it worth it. it was what created results. that everything is so easy now in the internet age destroys so many things, it feels like too much to mention.
let me give an example. imagine you were the only one in your place to discover, krautrock, or punkrock, or techno first. at least the only one you knew of. so in order to spread this music, the ideas, to reach out to others, you had to do something. create a fanzine. annoy your record store to stock these records. organize a small concert in a local youth centre or another place. hand out flyers.
and by this, you already had created something. something beautiful. and out of this, more could grow. in your local record store you meet a girl that has similiar taste and you both start a band. and maybe you get picked up
and become known nationwide...
do you think you would start a band because you and others clicked on the same song on a social network page or commented on the same video? (note: one out of a billion it might happen... but much, much less than it was the case with real record shops).
the struggle was the point. it was what put things in place, enabled growth, and make wonderous things happen.
but don't get me wrong. life doesn't have to be hard. there are the solutions. but social networks are not the solution. and most other things on the internet are not either.
all you do is click, click, click, and nothing happens. watch videos like videos read biographies get news look up biographies. and nothing happens.
change this.
with digital sound processing, all these seemingly problems were over. a sound program, or workstation, or plugin could take a 100% copy of a sound and 100% correctly repeat it in echo and delay.
now, seemingly, all was well.
yet people started to realise that something was wrong. yes, the sound was perfect. but exactly because of this, it suddenly felt cold. dry. it has lost its sparkle. so a lot of people went back to the analog reverb units, especially those using it for their bands, but also people in the analog electronic music field.
it turned out that the imperfect, artificial, often low in frequency feel of the early reverb units was actually what added a lot of magic to the songs. it stood out. it gave the music a spacey feel. an otherworldly attribute.
the early sound of new wave and postpunk are unthinkably without the specialness of analog reverb. same goes for the krautrock of the 70s. or the rock'n'roll of the 50s. the outer world looped "woo!" shouted echos of the rocknroll singers that spiralled into psychedelia made up a large part of the impact of this type of music (note: for rock'n'roll, often even more "primitive" methods were seemingly used: the bands just played in large empty buildings during recordings, like farm silos).
the disadvantage was the advantage. the problem was the solution. that the units recreated the sounds imperfectly was the biggest plus. it was the whole point of them.
now on to social networks. before the advent of the internet and social networks, if you had a, let's say, strange taste in music, culture or politics, it was hard for you to find likeminded people. to reach out and get in contact with the others. to attain the music you like. to find out more information. to get fanzines or books if they were available.
now with social networks, this is wholly different. you can reach out to thousand of people. find dozens of new songs everyday. find every info about every band you ever want. see their concert videos or their studio work.
seemingly, this is good. but just like the example with the digital reverb units. it killed the magic. it made a lot of things disappear.
because that you had to *struggle* if you had a different or more sophisticated taste or point of view was the whole point. it was what made it worth it. it was what created results. that everything is so easy now in the internet age destroys so many things, it feels like too much to mention.
let me give an example. imagine you were the only one in your place to discover, krautrock, or punkrock, or techno first. at least the only one you knew of. so in order to spread this music, the ideas, to reach out to others, you had to do something. create a fanzine. annoy your record store to stock these records. organize a small concert in a local youth centre or another place. hand out flyers.
and by this, you already had created something. something beautiful. and out of this, more could grow. in your local record store you meet a girl that has similiar taste and you both start a band. and maybe you get picked up
and become known nationwide...
do you think you would start a band because you and others clicked on the same song on a social network page or commented on the same video? (note: one out of a billion it might happen... but much, much less than it was the case with real record shops).
the struggle was the point. it was what put things in place, enabled growth, and make wonderous things happen.
but don't get me wrong. life doesn't have to be hard. there are the solutions. but social networks are not the solution. and most other things on the internet are not either.
all you do is click, click, click, and nothing happens. watch videos like videos read biographies get news look up biographies. and nothing happens.
change this.
My Last Posts
my last posts seemed to be a bit angrier than the other; apologises if i offended anyone. yet there is a strategy to this. it seems to me that in western culture, offline and online, we have a bit of what i call "consent culture" in a negative sense. everyone is eager to agree with each other, and to keep disagreement or differing opinions to him/herself. this is often also concsously encouraged. while it would probably make social life impossible if everyone would voice his own, diverging opinion public at "any cost" in most social situations, i think it is also very negative since it makes deeper debates or discussions more scarce. so i think there should be a situation where people "vent off their anger" or start a heated argument or voice a disputed opinion again, even it is seemingly not hundred percent rational or subjective.
Merging Techno And Hardcore With Social, Cultural And "Political" Thoughts
In an earlier text I addressed that techno at the beginning, and especially hardcore and breakcore, were deeply connected to social, cultural, "political" thoughts, ideas, concepts, movement. Radicalism, Subversion, Anti-Art, Creativity, Freedom. Total Anarchy.
This connection was severed - to a large part by a "second wave" of artists and 'scene-goers' who rejected these ideas from the bottom of their minds.
So this former radical form of art, that scared people and made the philisters deeply afraid, became just another form of consumerism, a product, perfumed, nicely cut-out, formatized, harmless.
The former radicals, who did not switch sides or became burned out, got bullied into silence by this onslaught of well-adapted societal persons into this community of now destructed radicalism.
But I think, it is time to speak out again. To get rid of this silence. To raise our voice again.
I say: Fuck You! to those who think music and art is just for "entertainment". For "pleasure". To "consume". Fuck you if you "just want to enjoy the sound", if you just "want to party", to numb your brain with shit music and drift into insignificance.
Fuck all of you.
Now for one more time let's address one of the numberous invalid points this "other side" likely would reply to these thoughts. 'Who are you to tell people how to "enjoy" their music". Okay so be it. If you really think music and art is just for "entertainment" then let's keep it that way. I am not trying to force anyone. But to those, us, like-minded people, who think music and art can be *much more* than this, I say: let us no longer keep silented by these others, let us speak out, let us speak open, make some noise and let us be heard.
This connection was severed - to a large part by a "second wave" of artists and 'scene-goers' who rejected these ideas from the bottom of their minds.
So this former radical form of art, that scared people and made the philisters deeply afraid, became just another form of consumerism, a product, perfumed, nicely cut-out, formatized, harmless.
The former radicals, who did not switch sides or became burned out, got bullied into silence by this onslaught of well-adapted societal persons into this community of now destructed radicalism.
But I think, it is time to speak out again. To get rid of this silence. To raise our voice again.
I say: Fuck You! to those who think music and art is just for "entertainment". For "pleasure". To "consume". Fuck you if you "just want to enjoy the sound", if you just "want to party", to numb your brain with shit music and drift into insignificance.
Fuck all of you.
Now for one more time let's address one of the numberous invalid points this "other side" likely would reply to these thoughts. 'Who are you to tell people how to "enjoy" their music". Okay so be it. If you really think music and art is just for "entertainment" then let's keep it that way. I am not trying to force anyone. But to those, us, like-minded people, who think music and art can be *much more* than this, I say: let us no longer keep silented by these others, let us speak out, let us speak open, make some noise and let us be heard.
Post Acid
i wanna kickstart a new thing, which is a crossover between post punk and acid house. acid house was what supplanted new wave music at the end of the 80s so it's only logical to combine the two. also, i dig both music styles a lot, which is another reason for me. and i see a gradual shift towards late 80s / early 90s acid house / rave in a lot of people tastes, so this is another reason for doing this. would be nice to see some artists kicking this style. what is funny is that while i tried to produce something like this i noticed that acid house and early electronic post punk are actually extremely alike, even if this is not as noticable at first. both have very similiar song structures, conception of tracks and even almost the same equipment used (early 80s drum and bass machines). so acid house is maybe the forgotton prodigial child of post punk and new wave? (hell, not even a question - for sure it is!)
this is my first attempt in this direction so take pity on me, but maybe it gives you an idea of which direction i am going in.
this is my first attempt in this direction so take pity on me, but maybe it gives you an idea of which direction i am going in.
We Need A Revolution
we need a fucking revolution.
in the past, almost everyone i knew was about revolutions, riots, uprisings, resistance... the bands and artists i listened to, too. when 2000 came nearer, and afterwards, this changed drastically. the demand for radical change, revolution, was now seen as something childish, immature, a thing of the past. mind you, not only by these artists and people, on which you could perhaps blame it on "growing up" after they went past the 30 year old mark, but *especially* amongst the new bands and new generation.
but apart from this very easy to see through strategy to associate radicalism with "childishness", which is a very often used as a conservative tactic - for the monarchs, "democracy" was a child's dream too, "women's rights" were a "childish concept" for the men of the 19th century - there was a not as easy to refute criticism and analysis of revolution, riots, and radicalism.
that consisted of two parts, that were joined together. had the revolutions of the past not made everything worse instead of better? was the regime of stalin not worse than that of the tsar? what about the revolutions in south america, that just installed a new dictatorship in place of the former?
so would it not be better, if things stayed as worse as they are - instead of going into the horror of a post-revolutionary society in which everything is worse?
the second critique addressed revolution and politics in general. are politics in general not *always* a trap?
and so, isn't revolution, too, a trap? with politics, you have a program, a concept, ideas, a structure, and are these things not bound to create an even bigger failure than the status quo? people are oppressed because of the ruling class. but if you establish a society in which everything is geared towards the ideal of "equality", doesn't this turn into a form of oppression too? just like stalin, who justified his deeds, not by proclaiming a thirst for power and extension of his rulership, but with the ideals of justice, equality and freedom of socialism.
i can only hint at this critique in this text. the question of the "tyranny of the ideals", the tyranny of symbols, could fill a whole book. or rather, a whole library. just let me add that a lot of thinkers, philosophers, and also poets, have pondered about this question.
this critique convinced me too, as it convinced almost everyone, consciously or subconsciously.
i too tried to purge the "revolutionary" vocabulary out of my statements, my thoughts, my demands.
my interest switched to authors, art and music that i deemed subversive and radical without overts claim for a revolution, such as psychobilly, early punkrock, rock'n'roll, krautrock...
there was two things i didn't notice at first.
the first of these i quickly learned, though.
which was that often, those people that now laughed at and criticised revolution, social upheavel and the rest of the political radicals that were still around, were the same people who were amongst the most radical proponents of radical change before. so the same people who hurried people to change everything, were now the ones who tried to tell people that they should stay calm, accept the status quo and accept the way society is.
this for themselves secured a position of intellectual leadership and social status, as the people were eager to listen to and follow these ideas.
there was something extremely fishy about this for me. these persons often had now found success - if even only in their "underground" extended social circle - and it seemed these recommandations to abstain from social radicalism and change also handily helped them to maintain their own "comfortable" position they had in society now.
there was something i didn't notice at all at first, and which took me a very long time to realise.
which was that it was the radical left - or if the word "left" is not the right description for all these people and groups, that espoused change in the direction of freedom, anarchy, anti-authoritarism - that dropped the concept of revolution. the right didn't think twice if they should drop the idea of radical societal change and a large scale "upheavel" or coup. they didn't say that "reform" or "moderate demands" should replace the concept of a total recreation of society. in their minds, such a change was "necessary", and more important, realistically possible, while for the left a revolution in the near future had become an "unrealistic" concept.
for many people, a claim by a hippie, an anarchist, a leftist for a revolution was completely laughable.
but if a rightwing person called for a radical, profound change of society, they were suddenly eager to agree.
it's horrible that we ended up in such a situation and it's necessary to change it.
let us get back to revolution, let us get to the desire for revolution, for freedom, for anarchy, for liberty, for creativity and expression. let us not get bullied by the others into thinking that revolution is a thing of the past or a child's play (keep in mind a child's concept can be full of wisdom too).
let us go... for revolution.
in the past, almost everyone i knew was about revolutions, riots, uprisings, resistance... the bands and artists i listened to, too. when 2000 came nearer, and afterwards, this changed drastically. the demand for radical change, revolution, was now seen as something childish, immature, a thing of the past. mind you, not only by these artists and people, on which you could perhaps blame it on "growing up" after they went past the 30 year old mark, but *especially* amongst the new bands and new generation.
but apart from this very easy to see through strategy to associate radicalism with "childishness", which is a very often used as a conservative tactic - for the monarchs, "democracy" was a child's dream too, "women's rights" were a "childish concept" for the men of the 19th century - there was a not as easy to refute criticism and analysis of revolution, riots, and radicalism.
that consisted of two parts, that were joined together. had the revolutions of the past not made everything worse instead of better? was the regime of stalin not worse than that of the tsar? what about the revolutions in south america, that just installed a new dictatorship in place of the former?
so would it not be better, if things stayed as worse as they are - instead of going into the horror of a post-revolutionary society in which everything is worse?
the second critique addressed revolution and politics in general. are politics in general not *always* a trap?
and so, isn't revolution, too, a trap? with politics, you have a program, a concept, ideas, a structure, and are these things not bound to create an even bigger failure than the status quo? people are oppressed because of the ruling class. but if you establish a society in which everything is geared towards the ideal of "equality", doesn't this turn into a form of oppression too? just like stalin, who justified his deeds, not by proclaiming a thirst for power and extension of his rulership, but with the ideals of justice, equality and freedom of socialism.
i can only hint at this critique in this text. the question of the "tyranny of the ideals", the tyranny of symbols, could fill a whole book. or rather, a whole library. just let me add that a lot of thinkers, philosophers, and also poets, have pondered about this question.
this critique convinced me too, as it convinced almost everyone, consciously or subconsciously.
i too tried to purge the "revolutionary" vocabulary out of my statements, my thoughts, my demands.
my interest switched to authors, art and music that i deemed subversive and radical without overts claim for a revolution, such as psychobilly, early punkrock, rock'n'roll, krautrock...
there was two things i didn't notice at first.
the first of these i quickly learned, though.
which was that often, those people that now laughed at and criticised revolution, social upheavel and the rest of the political radicals that were still around, were the same people who were amongst the most radical proponents of radical change before. so the same people who hurried people to change everything, were now the ones who tried to tell people that they should stay calm, accept the status quo and accept the way society is.
this for themselves secured a position of intellectual leadership and social status, as the people were eager to listen to and follow these ideas.
there was something extremely fishy about this for me. these persons often had now found success - if even only in their "underground" extended social circle - and it seemed these recommandations to abstain from social radicalism and change also handily helped them to maintain their own "comfortable" position they had in society now.
there was something i didn't notice at all at first, and which took me a very long time to realise.
which was that it was the radical left - or if the word "left" is not the right description for all these people and groups, that espoused change in the direction of freedom, anarchy, anti-authoritarism - that dropped the concept of revolution. the right didn't think twice if they should drop the idea of radical societal change and a large scale "upheavel" or coup. they didn't say that "reform" or "moderate demands" should replace the concept of a total recreation of society. in their minds, such a change was "necessary", and more important, realistically possible, while for the left a revolution in the near future had become an "unrealistic" concept.
for many people, a claim by a hippie, an anarchist, a leftist for a revolution was completely laughable.
but if a rightwing person called for a radical, profound change of society, they were suddenly eager to agree.
it's horrible that we ended up in such a situation and it's necessary to change it.
let us get back to revolution, let us get to the desire for revolution, for freedom, for anarchy, for liberty, for creativity and expression. let us not get bullied by the others into thinking that revolution is a thing of the past or a child's play (keep in mind a child's concept can be full of wisdom too).
let us go... for revolution.
Pop Culture Incarnate
"You're pop culture incarnate: Indifferent to suffering; insensitive to joy. All of life is reduced to the common rubble of banality. War, murder, death are all the same to you as bottles of beer. And the daily business of life is a corrupt comedy. You even shatter the sensations of time and space into song samples and pop references. You're madness. Virulent madness. And everything you touch dies with you. But not me. Not as long as I can feel pleasure, and pain... and love."
slightly changed from Max' dialogue in "Network" (1976 movie)
slightly changed from Max' dialogue in "Network" (1976 movie)
Die, Die Nichts Zu Verbergen Haben (In German Language)
gefahrengebiet 2014 in hamburg, videoüberwachung, nsa-spionage.
ein argument ist immer wieder, von denen, die diese sachen nicht ablehnen, oder sogar befürworten:
"wer nichts zu verbergen hat, hat auch nichts zu befürchten."
mag sein, das es so ist. wahrscheinlich nicht. aber es sollte nicht so sein.
*die*, die nichts zu verbergen haben, sollten sich fürchten.
die, deren leben so langweilig ist, die sich immer angepasst und untergeordnet, nie gross widersprochen, aus der reihe getanzt sind, sind diejenigen die sich fürchten müssten.
deren leben so öde ist, das auch die umfassendste enthüllung nichts schockierendes, nicht "anstößiges", entsetzendes, schockierendes zu tage fördern würde.
die sich nie "etwas zu schulde kommen lassen" haben, nicht mit der gesellschaftlichen moral, dem anstand, gebrochen haben, die nie etwas getan haben, was ihr soziales umfeld verstören würde. die keine "vergangenheit" haben - und keine gegenwart.
die sich immer brav den authoritäten, der gesellschaft, dem land untergeordnet haben.
die nie rebelliert und nie versucht haben, sich vom rest der menschen abzugrenzen.
die nie an ihre grenzen gegangen sind und darüber hinaus.
nicht die "unruhestifter", die "chaoten", die "asozialen" sollte man durch die strassen jagen. sondern die langweiligen, eintönigen spießer.
ein argument ist immer wieder, von denen, die diese sachen nicht ablehnen, oder sogar befürworten:
"wer nichts zu verbergen hat, hat auch nichts zu befürchten."
mag sein, das es so ist. wahrscheinlich nicht. aber es sollte nicht so sein.
*die*, die nichts zu verbergen haben, sollten sich fürchten.
die, deren leben so langweilig ist, die sich immer angepasst und untergeordnet, nie gross widersprochen, aus der reihe getanzt sind, sind diejenigen die sich fürchten müssten.
deren leben so öde ist, das auch die umfassendste enthüllung nichts schockierendes, nicht "anstößiges", entsetzendes, schockierendes zu tage fördern würde.
die sich nie "etwas zu schulde kommen lassen" haben, nicht mit der gesellschaftlichen moral, dem anstand, gebrochen haben, die nie etwas getan haben, was ihr soziales umfeld verstören würde. die keine "vergangenheit" haben - und keine gegenwart.
die sich immer brav den authoritäten, der gesellschaft, dem land untergeordnet haben.
die nie rebelliert und nie versucht haben, sich vom rest der menschen abzugrenzen.
die nie an ihre grenzen gegangen sind und darüber hinaus.
nicht die "unruhestifter", die "chaoten", die "asozialen" sollte man durch die strassen jagen. sondern die langweiligen, eintönigen spießer.
How To Become An Artist
i became an artist because i read in a book that making art should not be restricted to those people with an artistic background, or went to artschool, or became artist by "chance", but that every single person could be a great artist.
this way i sold a few thousand records with my art. a modest success, but not that bad for purely experimental music.
also a lot of things happened, which i may write about in another text.
so, okay, the question is now: everyone can become an artist and do great art. but how, exactly? how does it work?
let me talk about this here. there are two things you should know:
"you cannot be what you are not" and "what you are is perfect"
this leads to two further statements: "you cannot be anything else than you are and this is perfect", also "you cannot be anything else than being perfectly yourself".
so what does this have to do with art you may ask.
let me explain it.
say, a person wants to become a musician. doing electronic music. electronic music is, as you know, build up of drums, percussion, synths, and other elements.
so he sits down and wants to write some tracks. but all he can come up with is drums and rhythm; he isn't good at doing the synths or adding vocals or whatever.
now, remember: "you cannot be what you are not". if you are not good at synths when doing music, this is probably
something you are not; you cannot do it then.
but he makes drums and rhythms. so this is what he is. and - now - "what you are is perfect". so this is already perfect! this means: rather than straining his abilities by trying without results again and again to master the use of synths too - just make tracks consisting only of drums and rhytms. (this doesn't mean you cannot do something else later, too, of course).
so this is what you are - you are good at drums. it comes natural for you. and if it is something that really is "in your blood", the tracks will sound good and interesting and exciting, even without synths.
another example. a person wants to write short stories. but he only comes up with the beginnings of stories, at which he is good - but can't continue and can't end them.
so, writing beginnings is something "he is". writing the rest is something he is not.
remember the "rules" i wrote again.
just collect the beginnings you wrote for the stories you abandoned - and if you have a larger amount of them, put them into a collection of "beginnings".
"beginnings without end". already a good book title, don't you think? and it will be something that is already different, and already sounds more exciting than most of the collection of short stories that are around.
again, this is what you are then, and it is perfect.
this could be put even further.
a girl wants to write poems but she cannot come up with anything at all.
just blank papers each time she sits down and tries to write something.
perfect, i say!
collect the blank papers. photograph them. "poems that were not". exciting idea, again. find a way to publish these blank papers; as a collage, as a set of photos, whatever.
you could also add on this and add to each blank a description of how the poem would've been if you had written it, or the reasons while you feel you could not. again, this is highly artistic, in my opinion.
now, you can also strain this a bit.
you want to create dance music. but you can't.
think of it again. you cannot be what you are not, and what you are is perfect.
even if you cannot easily create this type of music, there is probably some overlapping with that you are. there are some dance tracks you are particularly fond of. so, in some way, what you are encompasses this.
so try to write some dance music *in your way*. not in the way of others, but in your very own way. again this will be perfect.
so much for now. always remember. what you are is perfect.
this way i sold a few thousand records with my art. a modest success, but not that bad for purely experimental music.
also a lot of things happened, which i may write about in another text.
so, okay, the question is now: everyone can become an artist and do great art. but how, exactly? how does it work?
let me talk about this here. there are two things you should know:
"you cannot be what you are not" and "what you are is perfect"
this leads to two further statements: "you cannot be anything else than you are and this is perfect", also "you cannot be anything else than being perfectly yourself".
so what does this have to do with art you may ask.
let me explain it.
say, a person wants to become a musician. doing electronic music. electronic music is, as you know, build up of drums, percussion, synths, and other elements.
so he sits down and wants to write some tracks. but all he can come up with is drums and rhythm; he isn't good at doing the synths or adding vocals or whatever.
now, remember: "you cannot be what you are not". if you are not good at synths when doing music, this is probably
something you are not; you cannot do it then.
but he makes drums and rhythms. so this is what he is. and - now - "what you are is perfect". so this is already perfect! this means: rather than straining his abilities by trying without results again and again to master the use of synths too - just make tracks consisting only of drums and rhytms. (this doesn't mean you cannot do something else later, too, of course).
so this is what you are - you are good at drums. it comes natural for you. and if it is something that really is "in your blood", the tracks will sound good and interesting and exciting, even without synths.
another example. a person wants to write short stories. but he only comes up with the beginnings of stories, at which he is good - but can't continue and can't end them.
so, writing beginnings is something "he is". writing the rest is something he is not.
remember the "rules" i wrote again.
just collect the beginnings you wrote for the stories you abandoned - and if you have a larger amount of them, put them into a collection of "beginnings".
"beginnings without end". already a good book title, don't you think? and it will be something that is already different, and already sounds more exciting than most of the collection of short stories that are around.
again, this is what you are then, and it is perfect.
this could be put even further.
a girl wants to write poems but she cannot come up with anything at all.
just blank papers each time she sits down and tries to write something.
perfect, i say!
collect the blank papers. photograph them. "poems that were not". exciting idea, again. find a way to publish these blank papers; as a collage, as a set of photos, whatever.
you could also add on this and add to each blank a description of how the poem would've been if you had written it, or the reasons while you feel you could not. again, this is highly artistic, in my opinion.
now, you can also strain this a bit.
you want to create dance music. but you can't.
think of it again. you cannot be what you are not, and what you are is perfect.
even if you cannot easily create this type of music, there is probably some overlapping with that you are. there are some dance tracks you are particularly fond of. so, in some way, what you are encompasses this.
so try to write some dance music *in your way*. not in the way of others, but in your very own way. again this will be perfect.
so much for now. always remember. what you are is perfect.
Why I Left The Breakcore Scene In 2001
the breakcore and experimental hardcore scene in the beginning revolved around a lot of radical, extreme, interesting, exciting, subversive and anarchist ideas. they were closely related - or similiar to those of guy debord, raoul vaneigem, hakim bey, ken knapp. even if one could argue that some artists did not directly espouse these ideas, at least they were similiar and it worked both ways. there were a lot of connections between, situationism, neo-luddites, "extropism" and the scene back then. especially, but not limited, through the free party scene then.
i don't know if i discovered these topics and ideas "through" the hardcore movement, or just around the same time, but both things fit very well together for me. in record names, track titles, interviews, and especially the magazines that were put out by the people, this connection of both things should probably become very clear. "pirate utopias", "chaos, mayhem and anarchy", and temporary autonomous zones, anyone?
now around 2000, things changed completely in the different direction. a new breakcore scene emerged, quickly replacing the old one, and they were very quick to jettison all the radical ideas. instead they took a for me extremly reactionary stance, celebrating market mechanisms and corporate pop culture, abandoning any attempts at social change, or radicalism.
this was the situation back then; i had started doing my own activites regarding hardcore and breakcore in 1997. my involvement was always about putting the aforementioned, and similiar, ideas accross. but with these new breakcore people this was simply not possible anymore.
now the thing is, you might say, okay ignore the others, and still try to put ideas accross, the majority will ignore them and maybe someone will listen to them.
but it was not as simply as that. the breakcore people, while maybe not understanding, were at least somehow aware of the ideas of the situationists and the others, but trying to coopt them and turning them around.
i came to the conclusion that it was simply not possible to put these ideas across, without them overtaking them or jamming them.
an example of this was pop sampling in hardcore tracks that was around in the 90s too (i'm not talking about the dance-scene related ID&T stuff here, but the extreme hardcore music). back then it was quite subversive. taking some bullshit pop singer crap, pitching it up until it sounds like a squealing weazle and give it the full-on 909 drum treatment. it was simply a "piss-off!" of all that pop crap that was around at the time.
with the breakcore crowd, this turned into pop crossovers, that were simply safe, that everyone done (and still does), and is not subversive at all. or does anyone claim these pop-breakcore tracks will incite any form of radical social change? not even the artists think that.
so for me it was very clear that i had to leave the breakcore sound behind, since it was simply not possible to get these radical ideas through anymore, not for me or for anyone else. now, in hindsight, this conclusion came maybe a bit early, and other artists and groups still tried to bring these things accross. but for me it is still the right decision.
especially, since back then, the upcoming speedcore, dance-orientated and doomcore scenes were very and extremely open to these ideas, so it was much better for me to be there then it would've been in the breakcore scene.
today, i wouldn't say the same about the current speedcore or mainstream hardcore world, but doomcore is still going strong.
addendum
i don't want to add this addendum, but i feel like i have to. some people might complain that i'm about "politics" or "ideology" and music should be kept free of them. while i don't think music should be free of it, principally, and situationism and neo-luddites, etc. were already beyond politics - and ideology - then simply drop the "politics" and think of radical, creative, extreme, exciting and interesting ideas. the sound was full of them - but with the breakcore scene, not anymore.
also i should add that i see this change in breakcore around 2000 as a - basically - totally deliberate move - not something that just (or inevitably) happened - even if the artists and people involved were not fully aware or conscious about it - to ultra-reactionism, or rather, ultra-boredom.
i don't know if i discovered these topics and ideas "through" the hardcore movement, or just around the same time, but both things fit very well together for me. in record names, track titles, interviews, and especially the magazines that were put out by the people, this connection of both things should probably become very clear. "pirate utopias", "chaos, mayhem and anarchy", and temporary autonomous zones, anyone?
now around 2000, things changed completely in the different direction. a new breakcore scene emerged, quickly replacing the old one, and they were very quick to jettison all the radical ideas. instead they took a for me extremly reactionary stance, celebrating market mechanisms and corporate pop culture, abandoning any attempts at social change, or radicalism.
this was the situation back then; i had started doing my own activites regarding hardcore and breakcore in 1997. my involvement was always about putting the aforementioned, and similiar, ideas accross. but with these new breakcore people this was simply not possible anymore.
now the thing is, you might say, okay ignore the others, and still try to put ideas accross, the majority will ignore them and maybe someone will listen to them.
but it was not as simply as that. the breakcore people, while maybe not understanding, were at least somehow aware of the ideas of the situationists and the others, but trying to coopt them and turning them around.
i came to the conclusion that it was simply not possible to put these ideas across, without them overtaking them or jamming them.
an example of this was pop sampling in hardcore tracks that was around in the 90s too (i'm not talking about the dance-scene related ID&T stuff here, but the extreme hardcore music). back then it was quite subversive. taking some bullshit pop singer crap, pitching it up until it sounds like a squealing weazle and give it the full-on 909 drum treatment. it was simply a "piss-off!" of all that pop crap that was around at the time.
with the breakcore crowd, this turned into pop crossovers, that were simply safe, that everyone done (and still does), and is not subversive at all. or does anyone claim these pop-breakcore tracks will incite any form of radical social change? not even the artists think that.
so for me it was very clear that i had to leave the breakcore sound behind, since it was simply not possible to get these radical ideas through anymore, not for me or for anyone else. now, in hindsight, this conclusion came maybe a bit early, and other artists and groups still tried to bring these things accross. but for me it is still the right decision.
especially, since back then, the upcoming speedcore, dance-orientated and doomcore scenes were very and extremely open to these ideas, so it was much better for me to be there then it would've been in the breakcore scene.
today, i wouldn't say the same about the current speedcore or mainstream hardcore world, but doomcore is still going strong.
addendum
i don't want to add this addendum, but i feel like i have to. some people might complain that i'm about "politics" or "ideology" and music should be kept free of them. while i don't think music should be free of it, principally, and situationism and neo-luddites, etc. were already beyond politics - and ideology - then simply drop the "politics" and think of radical, creative, extreme, exciting and interesting ideas. the sound was full of them - but with the breakcore scene, not anymore.
also i should add that i see this change in breakcore around 2000 as a - basically - totally deliberate move - not something that just (or inevitably) happened - even if the artists and people involved were not fully aware or conscious about it - to ultra-reactionism, or rather, ultra-boredom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)