i steered clear, or largely clear, in the last years, from the larger hardcore scenes such as breakcore and speedcore and delved into smaller areas such as acidcore and doomcore.
this has various reasons. there has been a lot of talk if the sound in mainstream hardcore or "terror" or speedcore has been evolved or not or is as hard or aggressive or kicking anymore, or if the new sound is superior. this is only secondary to me. i probably shouldn't waste too much thought on it. there is something different. when i joined the scene there was a certain spirit going around, that just is not there anymore. it is not something that could be easily explained or described. it's something you have to feel. and i don't feel it anymore. oh, and before you ask, it's not me who burned out, as i still feel this spirit very much with other, now growing scenes of music. eventually these areas of music might lose their spirit too - i guess it will happen to any scene eventually, or i suppose so. it was something in the way people behaved, the whole scene was structured. i felt immediately at home then. now i just feel as an outsider. the music and the people are no longer something i can relate to as they have changed - or i have changed and they did not. i don't know.
another thing is that the music doesn't set me free anymore. most hardcore that is produced makes me feel nothing. again, this is not something general. other music still sets you free. makes you feel as if you fly, reach the sky, makes you feel on top of the world, to slice through any obstacle and hindrance.
and third, hardcore is not something that relates to my own life in any way, most of the time. what is the point of hardcore? what is it message or meaning that it wants to transport? it used to have more meaning than any other genre, now it seemingly has less meaning than most other music. what exactly do the artists want to get across, want to tell me? to "have a good time" on "the dancefloor"? i could listen to 70s disco then aswell and wouldn't have the hassle to search for hardcore tunes. the funny thing here is, this is not even a criticism by me - the artists themselves don't even claim that the try to send any significant, deep, extensive cultural, social - or even political - idea, message, concept, structure by their music. they dont claim, or even think, their music could incite any larger change to society, for example. it is just produced for "entertainment" purposes. and, what should i say, if i wanted to be merely entertained i would be better off with mainstream pop, or as i said, disco.
the music with deep meaning is now produced in other genres. and i enjoy it highly there and get my buzz there.
Was Sagt Stirner? Teil 1
eine der einfacheren methoden, den intentionen und gedanken stirners auf den grund zu gehen, ist, die "reihenfolge" zu befolgen, die er im buch vorgibt, also einfach seinen gedanken "chronologisch" nachzugehen. die ausgangsposition, die er uns präsentiert, ist die folgende: zur zeit, als er das buch schrieb, ist das "ancien régime", und das meiste was ihm ähnelt, längst besiegt. ebenso ist das mittelalter lange beendet. der humanismus, der liberalismus, der sozialismus, bestimmen die debatten, die kämpfe, die ausrichtung des lebens und der intellektuellen. die situation sieht nun wie folgt aus: ein jahrtausend lang hatten die menschen "gott" in den mittelpunkt des lebens gestellt (nämlich im mittelalter), und zu einem geringeren grad, könig, kaiser und adel. das war der zentrale punkt des lebens gewesen, nach dem sich alles gerichtet hat. das alltagsleben, die gesellschaft, die philosophie. dies ist nun überwunden: und die philosophen zu stirners zeit forderten etwas ganz anderes, und im volk fand es widerklang: der mensch sollte im mittelpunkt stehen. nicht die götter, nicht der adel, nicht gott. der staat, die instituionen, alles im leben und im sozialen, sollte nicht länger auf "gott" ausgerichtet sein, sondern auf den menschen, sein wohlergehen, seine entfaltung. was stirner nun sagt, ist, dass dies prinzipiell sehr schön und gut wäre, wenn es denn wirklich um "die menschen" gehen würde. stattdessen geht es um "den menschen". der mensch wird zu einem abstrakten wesen erklärt, einem ideal, einem konzept, einer philosophie. nicht der reale, wirkliche mensch wird in das zentrum gerückt, sondern ein menschen-ideal, ein "ideal-mensch". nicht der mensch wie er ist, sondern wie er sein soll, wie er gedacht und geplant wird.
die philosophen, lehrmeister und politiker denken sich nun, wie der mensch so "ist". der mensch braucht gesetze, aber auch freiheit, arbeit, aber auch freizeit, kultur und bildung, aber vielleicht nicht zu viel davon, usw, usw., sagen sie. so ersinnen sie sich tausende von regeln und grundsätzen nach denen der mensch leben soll. was aber, wenn die "bürgerliche freiheit", die ihm von der neuen gesellschaft gewährt, einem "bürger" nicht freiheit genug ist, und er sich nach mehr sehnt?
die sowjetunion ist ein beispiel für einen staat, der sehr nach den konzepten, die stirner aufzeigt und kritisiert, gerichtet war. der staat "sorgte" dort für alles. arbeit, kultur, das ganze leben. was aber nun wenn dort einigen menschen die kultur die der staat den menschen verordnete nicht gefiel? sie lieber rockmusik und das wilde leben wollten? die politiker konnten dies nicht verstehen; dass "der mensch" kultur brauchte sahen sie ein; aber sie versorgten die menschen doch mit kultur, die sie für viel besser hielten als der "dekadente" rock'n'roll! dies ist eben der widerspruch zwischem dem gedachten menschen - dem menschen wie er sein soll - und dem *wirklichen* menschen - dem menschen wie er ist.
um wieder in den westen zu kommen. was wenn einem menschen die ganze "bürgerliche gesellschaft" nicht passt, er frei sein will, anarchisch, rebell? darauf ist die gesellschaft nicht ausgerichtet, und sie bekämpft ihn, oder verzweifelt an ihm. weil ihr solche realen, wirklichen äußerungen von individualität völlig fremd sind. die gesellschaft kümmert sich nur um den menschen als "ideal". und für diesen ideal-menschen hat sie auch alles bereit und versorgt ihn. wer sich immer brav an alle regeln hält und nur das begehrt was die gesellschaft ihm zur verfügung stellt hätte ja ein einfaches leben. nur der "real"-mensch ist eben nicht so. er hat wünsche, triebe, regungen, gefühle, die nicht von den "bürgerlichen" so gedacht und geplant waren, in ihren "idealen" vom menschen. die bürgerliche gesellschaft kümmert sich nicht um die menschen wie sie sind, sondern wie sie sein sollen - wie sie gedacht sind.
von daher hält sie den menschen immer ideale vor, denen sie entsprechen sollen.
die konsequenz daraus ist, dass das der gesamte versuch, die gesellschaft nach dem "menschen" auszurichten, gescheitert ist, bzw von vorneherein scheitern musste. weil die gesellschaft dieser periode, oder die sozialistische, oder die bürgerliche gesellschaft, sich nach einem "ideal"-menschen, einem abstrakten, gedachten menschen richteten, nicht nach den *wirklichen* menschen. sie verklärten den menschen zu einem ideal und konzept. dieses konzept wurde wiederum zu einem heiligtum, zu einem neuen gott, nach dem sich alles richtete. der gott hiess nun nicht mehr "gott", sondern mensch. die menschen wurden nicht mehr im namen der kirche unterdrückt, sondern im namen des "menschen" - sie würden unterdrückt, um "menschliche" freiheit, gerechtigkeit, gleichheit zu gewährleisten, die den wirklichen menschen nichts nützten, und menschliche pflichte und regeln einzuforderden, unter denen sie litten. die aussage heisst sozusagen (aber nicht ganz), dass kriege, urteile, kämpfe nun im "namen" der freiheit, gleichheit, gerechtigkeit geführt wurden, nicht mehr vordergründig im namen der götter und kaiser - zum schaden der menschen.
wie gesagt, dem *wirklichen* menschen gefallen vielleicht die regeln, die freizeitangebote, die kultur, die vorschriften, oder aber auch der luxus, die ziele, der "wohlstand" der gesellschaft nicht - und da "weiss sie nicht mehr weiter" und rückt aus zum kampf. und mahnt gleichzeitig, dass der mensch es doch so gut haben könnte in der gesellschaft - aber eben nur der "ideal-mensch".
man muss den wirklichen menschen aber auch nicht nur an "rebellion" festmachen. ein mensch könnte auch in einer kommune sein, in der es darum geht, sich so exzentrisch, speziell und "individualistisch" zu geben. auch dies könnte ihn langweilen, und er hat vielleicht ganz andere ziele, z.B. einfach seiner kunst zu frönen.
viele, die als jugendliche in subkulturen involviert waren, werden wissen, dass selbst die radikalste subkultur beschränkend und stagnierend sein kann, und die notwendigkeit aufwirft, sie zu verlassen.
(trotzdem schlägt unser herz meist mehr für den rebell als für die anderen, selbstverständlicherweise.)
stirner zeigt nun auch auf, dass dies auch nicht dadurch so einfach zu lösen wär, als dass man einfach den "ideal-mensch" durch einen begriff des "wirklichen menschen" ersetzt, und die gesellschaft und die welt dann danach ausrichtet. er sagt, das *jeder* menschen-begriff wiederum ein abstraktum werden würde, ein ideal, ein konzept, das - scheinbar paradoxerweise - dem *wirklichen* menschen nicht entsprechen würde. deswegen lehnt er den menschen-begriff ganz ab, und benutzt stattdessen das wort des einzigen, der kein begriff oder ideal oder abstrakt ist, in keinster weise, sondern vollkommen konkret und naheliegend. nämlich in meinem falle mich, den schreiber, und in deinem falle dich, den leser. und, in gewisserweise, oder besser gesagt, im vorliegendem falle, sonst niemanden. auch nicht "uns beide". das ist die person die stirner mit dem "einzigen" meint.
der einzige meint, wenn du das liest, tatsächlich nur dich, ganz allein, ohne mich, und wenn ich diesen text schreibe (oder auch lese) auch nur mich, und nicht (mehr) dich.
nach dem einzigen soll sich nun die gesellschaft und die welt richten. das ist nicht so gemeint, wie es sich für manche vielleicht anhört - nicht unbedingt so, dass der einzige nun alle macht oder geld oder ähnliches bekommt. sondern z.B., wenn einem einzigen die kultur, die musik, die die gesellschaft bevorzugt, nicht gefällt, er seine eigene machen kann, seinen eigenen weg gehen kann. in diesem fall ist das in beschränktem masse auch schon in unserer gesellschaft möglich (in anderen gesellschaften aber teilweise nicht), in vielen anderen bereichen der gesellschaft aber noch nicht oder nur sehr schwer - man kann sich z.B. nur schwer aus dem geldsystem oder der wohnmöglichkeiten ausklinken, zumindest nicht ohne viele nachteile in kauf zu nehmen.
dass sich die gesellschaft und die welt nun nach lauter, sozusagen millionen, von einzigen richten muss, werden nun viele für wahnsinn und unmöglich halten. dies sieht stirner auch so; vorallem ist es ja auch garnicht im interesse der gesellschaft, sich um den einzigen zu kümmern (zumindest nicht der unsrigen). stattdessen sagt stirner, dass sich der einzige eben seine möglichkeiten und wege und wünsche erkämpfen muss.
und damit auch erfolg haben kann.
die philosophen, lehrmeister und politiker denken sich nun, wie der mensch so "ist". der mensch braucht gesetze, aber auch freiheit, arbeit, aber auch freizeit, kultur und bildung, aber vielleicht nicht zu viel davon, usw, usw., sagen sie. so ersinnen sie sich tausende von regeln und grundsätzen nach denen der mensch leben soll. was aber, wenn die "bürgerliche freiheit", die ihm von der neuen gesellschaft gewährt, einem "bürger" nicht freiheit genug ist, und er sich nach mehr sehnt?
die sowjetunion ist ein beispiel für einen staat, der sehr nach den konzepten, die stirner aufzeigt und kritisiert, gerichtet war. der staat "sorgte" dort für alles. arbeit, kultur, das ganze leben. was aber nun wenn dort einigen menschen die kultur die der staat den menschen verordnete nicht gefiel? sie lieber rockmusik und das wilde leben wollten? die politiker konnten dies nicht verstehen; dass "der mensch" kultur brauchte sahen sie ein; aber sie versorgten die menschen doch mit kultur, die sie für viel besser hielten als der "dekadente" rock'n'roll! dies ist eben der widerspruch zwischem dem gedachten menschen - dem menschen wie er sein soll - und dem *wirklichen* menschen - dem menschen wie er ist.
um wieder in den westen zu kommen. was wenn einem menschen die ganze "bürgerliche gesellschaft" nicht passt, er frei sein will, anarchisch, rebell? darauf ist die gesellschaft nicht ausgerichtet, und sie bekämpft ihn, oder verzweifelt an ihm. weil ihr solche realen, wirklichen äußerungen von individualität völlig fremd sind. die gesellschaft kümmert sich nur um den menschen als "ideal". und für diesen ideal-menschen hat sie auch alles bereit und versorgt ihn. wer sich immer brav an alle regeln hält und nur das begehrt was die gesellschaft ihm zur verfügung stellt hätte ja ein einfaches leben. nur der "real"-mensch ist eben nicht so. er hat wünsche, triebe, regungen, gefühle, die nicht von den "bürgerlichen" so gedacht und geplant waren, in ihren "idealen" vom menschen. die bürgerliche gesellschaft kümmert sich nicht um die menschen wie sie sind, sondern wie sie sein sollen - wie sie gedacht sind.
von daher hält sie den menschen immer ideale vor, denen sie entsprechen sollen.
die konsequenz daraus ist, dass das der gesamte versuch, die gesellschaft nach dem "menschen" auszurichten, gescheitert ist, bzw von vorneherein scheitern musste. weil die gesellschaft dieser periode, oder die sozialistische, oder die bürgerliche gesellschaft, sich nach einem "ideal"-menschen, einem abstrakten, gedachten menschen richteten, nicht nach den *wirklichen* menschen. sie verklärten den menschen zu einem ideal und konzept. dieses konzept wurde wiederum zu einem heiligtum, zu einem neuen gott, nach dem sich alles richtete. der gott hiess nun nicht mehr "gott", sondern mensch. die menschen wurden nicht mehr im namen der kirche unterdrückt, sondern im namen des "menschen" - sie würden unterdrückt, um "menschliche" freiheit, gerechtigkeit, gleichheit zu gewährleisten, die den wirklichen menschen nichts nützten, und menschliche pflichte und regeln einzuforderden, unter denen sie litten. die aussage heisst sozusagen (aber nicht ganz), dass kriege, urteile, kämpfe nun im "namen" der freiheit, gleichheit, gerechtigkeit geführt wurden, nicht mehr vordergründig im namen der götter und kaiser - zum schaden der menschen.
wie gesagt, dem *wirklichen* menschen gefallen vielleicht die regeln, die freizeitangebote, die kultur, die vorschriften, oder aber auch der luxus, die ziele, der "wohlstand" der gesellschaft nicht - und da "weiss sie nicht mehr weiter" und rückt aus zum kampf. und mahnt gleichzeitig, dass der mensch es doch so gut haben könnte in der gesellschaft - aber eben nur der "ideal-mensch".
man muss den wirklichen menschen aber auch nicht nur an "rebellion" festmachen. ein mensch könnte auch in einer kommune sein, in der es darum geht, sich so exzentrisch, speziell und "individualistisch" zu geben. auch dies könnte ihn langweilen, und er hat vielleicht ganz andere ziele, z.B. einfach seiner kunst zu frönen.
viele, die als jugendliche in subkulturen involviert waren, werden wissen, dass selbst die radikalste subkultur beschränkend und stagnierend sein kann, und die notwendigkeit aufwirft, sie zu verlassen.
(trotzdem schlägt unser herz meist mehr für den rebell als für die anderen, selbstverständlicherweise.)
stirner zeigt nun auch auf, dass dies auch nicht dadurch so einfach zu lösen wär, als dass man einfach den "ideal-mensch" durch einen begriff des "wirklichen menschen" ersetzt, und die gesellschaft und die welt dann danach ausrichtet. er sagt, das *jeder* menschen-begriff wiederum ein abstraktum werden würde, ein ideal, ein konzept, das - scheinbar paradoxerweise - dem *wirklichen* menschen nicht entsprechen würde. deswegen lehnt er den menschen-begriff ganz ab, und benutzt stattdessen das wort des einzigen, der kein begriff oder ideal oder abstrakt ist, in keinster weise, sondern vollkommen konkret und naheliegend. nämlich in meinem falle mich, den schreiber, und in deinem falle dich, den leser. und, in gewisserweise, oder besser gesagt, im vorliegendem falle, sonst niemanden. auch nicht "uns beide". das ist die person die stirner mit dem "einzigen" meint.
der einzige meint, wenn du das liest, tatsächlich nur dich, ganz allein, ohne mich, und wenn ich diesen text schreibe (oder auch lese) auch nur mich, und nicht (mehr) dich.
nach dem einzigen soll sich nun die gesellschaft und die welt richten. das ist nicht so gemeint, wie es sich für manche vielleicht anhört - nicht unbedingt so, dass der einzige nun alle macht oder geld oder ähnliches bekommt. sondern z.B., wenn einem einzigen die kultur, die musik, die die gesellschaft bevorzugt, nicht gefällt, er seine eigene machen kann, seinen eigenen weg gehen kann. in diesem fall ist das in beschränktem masse auch schon in unserer gesellschaft möglich (in anderen gesellschaften aber teilweise nicht), in vielen anderen bereichen der gesellschaft aber noch nicht oder nur sehr schwer - man kann sich z.B. nur schwer aus dem geldsystem oder der wohnmöglichkeiten ausklinken, zumindest nicht ohne viele nachteile in kauf zu nehmen.
dass sich die gesellschaft und die welt nun nach lauter, sozusagen millionen, von einzigen richten muss, werden nun viele für wahnsinn und unmöglich halten. dies sieht stirner auch so; vorallem ist es ja auch garnicht im interesse der gesellschaft, sich um den einzigen zu kümmern (zumindest nicht der unsrigen). stattdessen sagt stirner, dass sich der einzige eben seine möglichkeiten und wege und wünsche erkämpfen muss.
und damit auch erfolg haben kann.
My Anti-Intellectual Art
now that i got rid of my anti-intellectualism, i can discloure the methods by which i made music and art in the last years. i tried to be completely anti-intellectual, - or rather as anti-intellectual as i could be - in my art. to get rid of logic, thought, rationality, mind, intellect, cognitivity and intelligence in my art, and instead base it purely on instinct, emotion, feelings, improvisation, subconsciousness, motion and sense.
i tried to reduce intellectual ways of doing art as much as i could - or rather, as much as it was 'sensible'.
i tried to reduce reflection and thinking. i called this concept by the name of "no second thoughts". which means, that if i worked on a track, i would use the *first* concept, idea, structure that came to my mind. and never change it at all. even this was still much to "mindful" to me, this is why i tried methods that did not involve the mind at all. such as "blindly" sequencing and editing the music tracks. there was many and plenty of other methods i designed to reduce "intelligence" from my tracks. as i said, i wanted to base it solely on emotion, instinct and things like this.
as you might suspect, this didn't really work out in the end, and my tracks turned more complex and "thought out" than before. still, i tried to put a big deal of emotion into my tracks. i'm not to tell if i succeeded.
as i know now, this was of course the completely wrong way to go with art. yet it is interesting how much energy i actually put into this project, and it might be interesting for people to see an anti-intellectual approach on art, that is based on feelings and emotions.
this anti-intellectual period of my music spans three years from the end of 2010 to the end of 2013.
i tried to reduce intellectual ways of doing art as much as i could - or rather, as much as it was 'sensible'.
i tried to reduce reflection and thinking. i called this concept by the name of "no second thoughts". which means, that if i worked on a track, i would use the *first* concept, idea, structure that came to my mind. and never change it at all. even this was still much to "mindful" to me, this is why i tried methods that did not involve the mind at all. such as "blindly" sequencing and editing the music tracks. there was many and plenty of other methods i designed to reduce "intelligence" from my tracks. as i said, i wanted to base it solely on emotion, instinct and things like this.
as you might suspect, this didn't really work out in the end, and my tracks turned more complex and "thought out" than before. still, i tried to put a big deal of emotion into my tracks. i'm not to tell if i succeeded.
as i know now, this was of course the completely wrong way to go with art. yet it is interesting how much energy i actually put into this project, and it might be interesting for people to see an anti-intellectual approach on art, that is based on feelings and emotions.
this anti-intellectual period of my music spans three years from the end of 2010 to the end of 2013.
A Program
....the bullshit capitalist society generates on every level of life (destruction of the enviroment, famines, war, loneliness, senseless violence etc; i.e. all-encompassing misery wherever you look) is already way beyond being merely *unacceptable*.... i dont reject some aspects of capitalist society but all aspects of capitalist society....
the various forms of liberal activism (informing the public, trying to get the attention of the media, etc) lead to "hi-quantity lo-qualitiy" change; e.g. quite a lot of people now know a bit about feminism, ecology or sexual freedom, yet the essence of these issues have become completely diluted, and they are now even used by the system itself. (e.g. fashionproducts marketed as representing the sexual freedom of women).... instead of wasting our energy on 'slowly reforming the system' i propose a radical break with capitalist societys and all its abstractions....
the most important thing in the struggle for a free society is to organise yourself.... you wont get anywhere when you're alone...
i am not talking about joining,creating the usual „political“ organisations of the past/present but about creating groups/communities that are devoid of bureacracies, hierarchies, etc... small-scale groups based on the close personal relationships of the members focused on subverting the power of the system and creating alternatives to the institutions of capitalist society....
you dont have to focus on "political" actions only, to the contrary...everything that alienates people from the system, its fake pleasures and its delusion of inevitably, and showing them the way towards a more authentic, more intense, more satisfying mode of existance and a more just, more rational, more humane form of social, political and cultural "order" is worth doing...
do not pin your hopes on the authorities or other leaders; they will betray you, they will sell you out, as history shows more than clearly... it’s not upon the „authorities“, the „goverment“, the „industry“ to do anything about the mess we and the rest of the world live in but it’s upon ourselves to wake up and to get active....
some people say that you have to "change yourself" in order to change the world.... changing ones own behavior is a good idea yet this should not be about being nice to everyone but rather without having apathy, irrational fear, and acting with self confidence and courage...
avoid the capitalist media, i repeat, avoid the capitalist media, avoid being visible to the authorities and other agents of the system..... <del> the moment you get visible, capitalist society will either decide that you and your deeds are criminal and lock you up, or the capitalist media will assimilate you and your deeds, turning them into another substance-less hype, fashion...
instead of trying to influece the „mainstream“ and capitalist society(a reformist approach based on the delusion that there could be a linear transition from a capitalist society to a free society) we ought to try to aliente people from the mainstream, the masses i.e. from capitalist society and integrate them into our own communities and social networks.... the point is instead of aiming at the 'masses' to aim at the individuals the 'masses' are composed of....
by the way, even non capitalist media(alternate zines, alternate internet pages) are not ideal, a meeting of 1000 people is better than a zine read by 1000 people(because there opinions can be debated face to face, you can meet likeminded people and create groups with them, etc )(although a meeting with 1000 people and a zine read by 1000 people would be the optimal sitatuation).... the real world, the world of the *flesh* is of importance; leaflets are better than webpages(the main flaw of the internet is that it's mostly accessed by white middle class computernerds), face to face discussions are better than leaflets...
today massive amounts of people already disagree with the status quo; they're unhappy with the way things are, and distrust the 'wisdom' of the powerful authorities.... yet these people dont engage in active change; they simply don't see any ways to actually change things for the better.... if we „lead by example“ showing them thru our action that alternatives are possible many of them will join us...
action without theory is just as bad as theory without action...so check out the theory, read books...it is really important to grasp the underlying concepts of the struggle for a free society and to understand, for example, the role of the massmedia inside capitalist society...
the often voiced idea that "nothing will change anyway", that all action will result in nothing at all, is bullshit; on a global level, the changes we might make are small, but as i said above, the quality of changes is important, not the quantity.... it will quite probably be the case that some of our attempts will fail; but this is not a problem, since our „failures“ will give us insight in how we should do it better in the future; therefore approaches that „fail“ are a vital part of our activism, just as a child trips a few times while learning how to walk.... of course there are many things, which cant be accomplished by simple small scale organization&action.... for attaining "bigger" goals these groups have to set up some network of groups...
so here are some concrecete ideas of what the abovementioned groups could focus on...
anarchist street preaching: talking to people on the street about the evils of capitalism and the possibilites of resistance... this is the most direct way to reach people... of course avoid the police and the media and make sure to adopt your speech to your audience e.g. using intellectual vocubularly wont do much good in a lower class area... free sex collectives: sex/love is one of the most mutilated things within capitalist society; let's experiece whats real love/sex thats not based on bourgeois values like monogamy, subjugation, etc feels like....antischool collectives: helping people avoid the state-run education systems and or employing alternate methods of "education"... free food collectives, free places-to-sleep(squatting), free "anything else" collectives, you get the point...what we have to do is to ask ourselves: which demands, which desires, can we fulfill 'outside' the system, by organizing ourselves....
(in a different and short form, the above text was put on the backcover of my Widerstand LP in 2003)
the various forms of liberal activism (informing the public, trying to get the attention of the media, etc) lead to "hi-quantity lo-qualitiy" change; e.g. quite a lot of people now know a bit about feminism, ecology or sexual freedom, yet the essence of these issues have become completely diluted, and they are now even used by the system itself. (e.g. fashionproducts marketed as representing the sexual freedom of women).... instead of wasting our energy on 'slowly reforming the system' i propose a radical break with capitalist societys and all its abstractions....
the most important thing in the struggle for a free society is to organise yourself.... you wont get anywhere when you're alone...
i am not talking about joining,creating the usual „political“ organisations of the past/present but about creating groups/communities that are devoid of bureacracies, hierarchies, etc... small-scale groups based on the close personal relationships of the members focused on subverting the power of the system and creating alternatives to the institutions of capitalist society....
you dont have to focus on "political" actions only, to the contrary...everything that alienates people from the system, its fake pleasures and its delusion of inevitably, and showing them the way towards a more authentic, more intense, more satisfying mode of existance and a more just, more rational, more humane form of social, political and cultural "order" is worth doing...
do not pin your hopes on the authorities or other leaders; they will betray you, they will sell you out, as history shows more than clearly... it’s not upon the „authorities“, the „goverment“, the „industry“ to do anything about the mess we and the rest of the world live in but it’s upon ourselves to wake up and to get active....
some people say that you have to "change yourself" in order to change the world.... changing ones own behavior is a good idea yet this should not be about being nice to everyone but rather without having apathy, irrational fear, and acting with self confidence and courage...
avoid the capitalist media, i repeat, avoid the capitalist media, avoid being visible to the authorities and other agents of the system..... <del> the moment you get visible, capitalist society will either decide that you and your deeds are criminal and lock you up, or the capitalist media will assimilate you and your deeds, turning them into another substance-less hype, fashion...
instead of trying to influece the „mainstream“ and capitalist society(a reformist approach based on the delusion that there could be a linear transition from a capitalist society to a free society) we ought to try to aliente people from the mainstream, the masses i.e. from capitalist society and integrate them into our own communities and social networks.... the point is instead of aiming at the 'masses' to aim at the individuals the 'masses' are composed of....
by the way, even non capitalist media(alternate zines, alternate internet pages) are not ideal, a meeting of 1000 people is better than a zine read by 1000 people(because there opinions can be debated face to face, you can meet likeminded people and create groups with them, etc )(although a meeting with 1000 people and a zine read by 1000 people would be the optimal sitatuation).... the real world, the world of the *flesh* is of importance; leaflets are better than webpages(the main flaw of the internet is that it's mostly accessed by white middle class computernerds), face to face discussions are better than leaflets...
today massive amounts of people already disagree with the status quo; they're unhappy with the way things are, and distrust the 'wisdom' of the powerful authorities.... yet these people dont engage in active change; they simply don't see any ways to actually change things for the better.... if we „lead by example“ showing them thru our action that alternatives are possible many of them will join us...
action without theory is just as bad as theory without action...so check out the theory, read books...it is really important to grasp the underlying concepts of the struggle for a free society and to understand, for example, the role of the massmedia inside capitalist society...
the often voiced idea that "nothing will change anyway", that all action will result in nothing at all, is bullshit; on a global level, the changes we might make are small, but as i said above, the quality of changes is important, not the quantity.... it will quite probably be the case that some of our attempts will fail; but this is not a problem, since our „failures“ will give us insight in how we should do it better in the future; therefore approaches that „fail“ are a vital part of our activism, just as a child trips a few times while learning how to walk.... of course there are many things, which cant be accomplished by simple small scale organization&action.... for attaining "bigger" goals these groups have to set up some network of groups...
so here are some concrecete ideas of what the abovementioned groups could focus on...
anarchist street preaching: talking to people on the street about the evils of capitalism and the possibilites of resistance... this is the most direct way to reach people... of course avoid the police and the media and make sure to adopt your speech to your audience e.g. using intellectual vocubularly wont do much good in a lower class area... free sex collectives: sex/love is one of the most mutilated things within capitalist society; let's experiece whats real love/sex thats not based on bourgeois values like monogamy, subjugation, etc feels like....antischool collectives: helping people avoid the state-run education systems and or employing alternate methods of "education"... free food collectives, free places-to-sleep(squatting), free "anything else" collectives, you get the point...what we have to do is to ask ourselves: which demands, which desires, can we fulfill 'outside' the system, by organizing ourselves....
(in a different and short form, the above text was put on the backcover of my Widerstand LP in 2003)
The Problem Of Society
the core problem of today's society is that people are unwilling - or rather, incapable - of striving for, attaining, taking action for anything that is not tangible, direct, "right there", common. they are willing to dedicate extreme amounts of energy, dedication, effort to attain things such as money, luxury, power, wealth, social standing. but they are not willing to lift a finger for an idea, for ideals, a dream - utopia.
The Beautiful
you can not find the beautiful,
if you do not find beauty in the world first
you can not find beauty in the world,
if you do not find beauty in yourself first
so find beauty in yourself; find beauty in the world; and then find the beautiful.
if you do not find beauty in the world first
you can not find beauty in the world,
if you do not find beauty in yourself first
so find beauty in yourself; find beauty in the world; and then find the beautiful.
Activity And Various Forms Of Art
a work of art exists. yet the art is not finished in this way; art has two parts; the artwork the artist created, and a part that comes from the viewer / listener / reader. he has to add his imagination, his perception, reception to make the artwork complete. this is a point of view i tried to avoid for quite some time, since it reminded me of "active audience" theories of postmodernism, which i hated for their relativism and opinion that for me led to a 'everything is in the same way meaningful and meaningless' stance (which, in itself can have some merits - but not in the way the people with these theories imagined).
art is created, and needs activity in the person who perceives the art, in order for it to be art. yet there are
vast difference between different artforms and mediums, and also there has been a shift in the last decadeds, or rather, centuries.
i will look at a few different forms of art and mediums here; there are more to be looked at, but this will not be addressed in this text, maybe in a future text.
comics
comics are one of the best examples to illustrate the point i am trying to make. what is special with comics is, that if the main action happens, you do not see it. or rather, you never see any actual action or events happening. you only see individual isolated pictures, that capture tiny frames of what happens. so what happens to the comic reader is that he has to, and does, create a whole movie - or rather, a whole scene - or rather, a whole world - in his imagination while reading the comic. one panel shows an object falling down. the next panel shows it sitting on the ground. the whole event of the object completing the fall, hitting the ground, and coming to lie still, has to be pictured, envisioned and created in the mind of the reader. this is a bit of a simple example, but i think it helps to illustrate the point. with more important and complex happening, the mind of the reader has to become even more active. a page could have 8-12 panels. but the reader has to create thousand of frames, "panels" in his mind in order to follow whats going on. even if most people do that subconciously, and might not even "visually" envision these images, this flow when reading the comic. so in a sense, one could say, the reader of a comic has to create more art than the actual artist who drew the artist. the artist might have drawn 200 panels; the reader created 20.000 frames in his mind.
movies
movies are basically the complete opposite of what i wanted to point out with comics. modern movies condemn the viewer to complete passivity. nothing is "left to the imagination" anymore. it is no wonder visual effects, animations, the way things are shown in movies get better and more perfect as time goes on. everything is rolled out, drawn out for the viewer, nothing has to be filled in by imagination. together with the fact that a movie goes on all the time, this actually *forbids* the viewer to use his own imagination. with a comics, or a book, you can lie it aside and think about what you just read, and, or, drift off in your own imagination. with movies, you can not stop to do this (at least not in a movie theatre or similiar surrounding. and even with a video you can pause, it is not the same). you are not allowed to use your own imagination, basically you are not allowed to think - at least not allowed to think too much, with movies.
yet, as with most media, there are of course directors who skillfully subverted this treachery of the world of movies. with david lynch, you have to think all the time - put your mind at max efficieny - to be able to follow the plot.
but regardless of what, it is no wonder people doze off at TV. movies are the medium of passivity.
books
books have a wonderful potential in that they have no visual information for the reader. which means, that even more than with comics basically, he has to create a world in his imagination, rely on his own creativity. he has to transform the words he reads into visual images. it comes no surprise then the books have always been the choice medium who those who are "dreamers", or creatively interested or talented.
on a cold winter night, with a candle burning and a stunning novel, you can cast off into a different world of imagination.
i would rate comics actually above books in terms of actual activity though - as in books there is a flow of events. a book rolls out to you, in a similiar way as movie, you just have to add the imagines - and you can stop every time to think out how you would like the events to happen in your own way. yet with comics you have to imagine the events themselves - not only visually, but fully.
visuality and text
before going on, i want to address two further key issues. visuality and text. both can be useful, but also very treacherous. anyone who has been disappointed by a broken spoken promise might agree - to give a simple example.
thus, i am always more sceptical about media that rely heavily on visuality and text. movies have both; another reason to distrust them.
music
purely instrumental music, on the other hand, does not. that's why it always had one of the closest places to my heart. even with music with vocal and text, a heavy focus lies on the instrumentation - i.e., the nonverbal part.
music is the media i would rate highest in this context, for the activity the viewer has to do to be able to comprehend it. music is able to create whole images in the imagination of the listener. whole worlds, created by sonic. it is said a picture can paint a thousand words. for me, music can paint a thousand pictures.
i've heard certain architecture to be called "frozen music". maybe one could say it the other way round too: music is frozen architecture - of the architecture of imagination.
there is so much magic and specialness in music, that it is hard to express.
paintings
painting are visual but (usally) textless. this is already a plus. yet they too are very restricted, but are able to enchant the imagination of the viewer, much more so than movies could ever do. also, with paintings, similar to comics, the viewer often has to employ his own imagination to create or complete the event shown in the paintings - another plus. just think of these renaissance paintings, that are, even though they are still, seemingly buzzing with activity and action.
a change
now the problem i want to address is the following. in the past decades, or rather centuries, as already hinted, there has been a shift in these things. art and reception of art has moved away from this activity. the viewer becomes more and more passive. he has to employ imagination less and less, has to less think for himself. his artistic ability grows smaller. as said, people no longer create their own world of imagination while reading a book, but watch a movie that rolls it all out for them. now with fantasy and other movies, that are sometimes very creatively made and fascinating, people might have the feeling to drift off into imagination too. but it is not their imagination. they do not use their own imagination. it is already laid out for them. they are not creative - not creating.
that the shift is from textless or non-visual media - such as book and movies - to visual and textual media like movies, makes it worse.
people are losing their ability to be creative and artistic themselves. the ability to use their imagination. the core of art. they become less imaginative. no wonder the world is more and more uncreative and visionless.
music is a good example of this problem.
is it said that most of todays "mainstream" music is similiar and same-sounding. but it simply has to be this way, since people are becoming less able to do the things i mentioned above. for them, to even "understand" it, it has be in pre-conceived, convential, repeated forms. if a slow piano in a minor tuning starts the song, they know it's gonna be a ballad. if it has dance beats and girls singing, they know it is an upbeat party song. otherwise they would not understand it. they wouldn't get it if a song with "party" type production would actually be sad, or the other way round. i've seen this way of thinking in action, with people listening to what they thought to be happy dance music, without comphrehending the dark and twisted images conceived by the lyrics of the song. it didn't add up, so they didn't notice - they just saw what it was at the surface, how it was structued.
music that has methods and structures that go beyond these pre-formulated concepts has a hard time these days. music that requires people to use their own imagination. that goes deeper, is more complex, not easily seen through.
why is all this important? because there is an impoverishment of imagination going on. the loss of this ablity.
it is important because this is a key ability. for oneself. for life. for the world.
if people lack vision, we will live in a world without vision.
with this i want to end this text.
if you do art yourself, if you want, you could think about the concepts i illustrated here, any maybe they can help you or add something to your art or the way it is perceived.
art is created, and needs activity in the person who perceives the art, in order for it to be art. yet there are
vast difference between different artforms and mediums, and also there has been a shift in the last decadeds, or rather, centuries.
i will look at a few different forms of art and mediums here; there are more to be looked at, but this will not be addressed in this text, maybe in a future text.
comics
comics are one of the best examples to illustrate the point i am trying to make. what is special with comics is, that if the main action happens, you do not see it. or rather, you never see any actual action or events happening. you only see individual isolated pictures, that capture tiny frames of what happens. so what happens to the comic reader is that he has to, and does, create a whole movie - or rather, a whole scene - or rather, a whole world - in his imagination while reading the comic. one panel shows an object falling down. the next panel shows it sitting on the ground. the whole event of the object completing the fall, hitting the ground, and coming to lie still, has to be pictured, envisioned and created in the mind of the reader. this is a bit of a simple example, but i think it helps to illustrate the point. with more important and complex happening, the mind of the reader has to become even more active. a page could have 8-12 panels. but the reader has to create thousand of frames, "panels" in his mind in order to follow whats going on. even if most people do that subconciously, and might not even "visually" envision these images, this flow when reading the comic. so in a sense, one could say, the reader of a comic has to create more art than the actual artist who drew the artist. the artist might have drawn 200 panels; the reader created 20.000 frames in his mind.
movies
movies are basically the complete opposite of what i wanted to point out with comics. modern movies condemn the viewer to complete passivity. nothing is "left to the imagination" anymore. it is no wonder visual effects, animations, the way things are shown in movies get better and more perfect as time goes on. everything is rolled out, drawn out for the viewer, nothing has to be filled in by imagination. together with the fact that a movie goes on all the time, this actually *forbids* the viewer to use his own imagination. with a comics, or a book, you can lie it aside and think about what you just read, and, or, drift off in your own imagination. with movies, you can not stop to do this (at least not in a movie theatre or similiar surrounding. and even with a video you can pause, it is not the same). you are not allowed to use your own imagination, basically you are not allowed to think - at least not allowed to think too much, with movies.
yet, as with most media, there are of course directors who skillfully subverted this treachery of the world of movies. with david lynch, you have to think all the time - put your mind at max efficieny - to be able to follow the plot.
but regardless of what, it is no wonder people doze off at TV. movies are the medium of passivity.
books
books have a wonderful potential in that they have no visual information for the reader. which means, that even more than with comics basically, he has to create a world in his imagination, rely on his own creativity. he has to transform the words he reads into visual images. it comes no surprise then the books have always been the choice medium who those who are "dreamers", or creatively interested or talented.
on a cold winter night, with a candle burning and a stunning novel, you can cast off into a different world of imagination.
i would rate comics actually above books in terms of actual activity though - as in books there is a flow of events. a book rolls out to you, in a similiar way as movie, you just have to add the imagines - and you can stop every time to think out how you would like the events to happen in your own way. yet with comics you have to imagine the events themselves - not only visually, but fully.
visuality and text
before going on, i want to address two further key issues. visuality and text. both can be useful, but also very treacherous. anyone who has been disappointed by a broken spoken promise might agree - to give a simple example.
thus, i am always more sceptical about media that rely heavily on visuality and text. movies have both; another reason to distrust them.
music
purely instrumental music, on the other hand, does not. that's why it always had one of the closest places to my heart. even with music with vocal and text, a heavy focus lies on the instrumentation - i.e., the nonverbal part.
music is the media i would rate highest in this context, for the activity the viewer has to do to be able to comprehend it. music is able to create whole images in the imagination of the listener. whole worlds, created by sonic. it is said a picture can paint a thousand words. for me, music can paint a thousand pictures.
i've heard certain architecture to be called "frozen music". maybe one could say it the other way round too: music is frozen architecture - of the architecture of imagination.
there is so much magic and specialness in music, that it is hard to express.
paintings
painting are visual but (usally) textless. this is already a plus. yet they too are very restricted, but are able to enchant the imagination of the viewer, much more so than movies could ever do. also, with paintings, similar to comics, the viewer often has to employ his own imagination to create or complete the event shown in the paintings - another plus. just think of these renaissance paintings, that are, even though they are still, seemingly buzzing with activity and action.
a change
now the problem i want to address is the following. in the past decades, or rather centuries, as already hinted, there has been a shift in these things. art and reception of art has moved away from this activity. the viewer becomes more and more passive. he has to employ imagination less and less, has to less think for himself. his artistic ability grows smaller. as said, people no longer create their own world of imagination while reading a book, but watch a movie that rolls it all out for them. now with fantasy and other movies, that are sometimes very creatively made and fascinating, people might have the feeling to drift off into imagination too. but it is not their imagination. they do not use their own imagination. it is already laid out for them. they are not creative - not creating.
that the shift is from textless or non-visual media - such as book and movies - to visual and textual media like movies, makes it worse.
people are losing their ability to be creative and artistic themselves. the ability to use their imagination. the core of art. they become less imaginative. no wonder the world is more and more uncreative and visionless.
music is a good example of this problem.
is it said that most of todays "mainstream" music is similiar and same-sounding. but it simply has to be this way, since people are becoming less able to do the things i mentioned above. for them, to even "understand" it, it has be in pre-conceived, convential, repeated forms. if a slow piano in a minor tuning starts the song, they know it's gonna be a ballad. if it has dance beats and girls singing, they know it is an upbeat party song. otherwise they would not understand it. they wouldn't get it if a song with "party" type production would actually be sad, or the other way round. i've seen this way of thinking in action, with people listening to what they thought to be happy dance music, without comphrehending the dark and twisted images conceived by the lyrics of the song. it didn't add up, so they didn't notice - they just saw what it was at the surface, how it was structued.
music that has methods and structures that go beyond these pre-formulated concepts has a hard time these days. music that requires people to use their own imagination. that goes deeper, is more complex, not easily seen through.
why is all this important? because there is an impoverishment of imagination going on. the loss of this ablity.
it is important because this is a key ability. for oneself. for life. for the world.
if people lack vision, we will live in a world without vision.
with this i want to end this text.
if you do art yourself, if you want, you could think about the concepts i illustrated here, any maybe they can help you or add something to your art or the way it is perceived.
The Spirit Of Adventure
adventure has and always will be a possibility.
yet this is something that seems to be very much gone from most people's life. who still feels adventure and excitement in his own life and everyday routine? even rebellious youth, who in the past took on whole generations, societies, the world, now resort to modest goals as having a good time on the weekend.
as i grew up, there was the space shuttle program. compared to todays standarts, this was a rather small happening. a state run program, rarely a lift-off, you could never imagine to become one of the astronauts as it was limited to trained experts. yet it enchanted, and enchanted the imagination, of millions of people, who watched in awe the lift-offs and reports about the space shuttle. now we have a plethora of space program, run by private organisations, some even claim to be able in the future to send ordinary people into space for an okay price. but this doesn't enchant almost anyone at all anymore. in fact, most people would not even care. the sense of, and for, adventure has been diminished. the same goes for almost every other era of life. in social, cultural, political fields, no adventure can be found anymore. the utopian ideals and movements, that reached millions of people are all gone now. the task to flip the whole world order and enter a golden era, gone now. replaced with "real politics" and the likes.
people are realistic now. pragmatic. they know it all. they "know" true adventure is just a dream. "real" life is different, they say. they strive for things that are tangible - cars, houses, money - not something that dreams are made of. they think in realistic terms and concepts - not in daring, adventureous ones. they "know" higher, exciting things are just imagination. they no longer belive in them, and do not follow them. they put their focus to what is normal, standard, common.
but this is not true.
adventure is still out there. true, real adventure. unknown things, unknown pleasure. the sweet tears of ecstasy.
dream, utopia, the wonderful - all within the reach of one's hands. breaking out of routine - the option is there all the time.
adventure has gone, not because people have found that, well, real life on this world is not pretty exciting and everything else is a "dream", but because they have given up the idea of adventure, of wonderful dreams. of utopia.
no wonder adventure is out of reach for most people, out of reach in this world - if people do not even believe in it anymore, and do not attempt to reach it at all.
you can rarely attain something if you make no attempt, right? so they don't attain adventure, and this then they use as a proof it is not attainable at all.
adventure is always a possiblity. humanity behaves as a man who has found a text about a treasure hidden in a pyramid; now that he has managed to get into the secret room, he has found it empty. he is now disappointed and on the verge of giving up. but there are more secret rooms to be found, and the treasure might very likely be out there. now, in the last centures, humanity actually stacked up a lot of these "empty treasure rooms". the socialist, the cultural and other political utopias have in the past been most of the time turned out as empty dreams. marx, the hippies, punkrock didn't flip over the world.
but that is no reason to give up, or to think adventure and utopia are actually not possible.
something that is so very much real in our imagination can simply not be impossible in the "real" world.
the treasure is still out there. go for it, and you will attain it.
yet this is something that seems to be very much gone from most people's life. who still feels adventure and excitement in his own life and everyday routine? even rebellious youth, who in the past took on whole generations, societies, the world, now resort to modest goals as having a good time on the weekend.
as i grew up, there was the space shuttle program. compared to todays standarts, this was a rather small happening. a state run program, rarely a lift-off, you could never imagine to become one of the astronauts as it was limited to trained experts. yet it enchanted, and enchanted the imagination, of millions of people, who watched in awe the lift-offs and reports about the space shuttle. now we have a plethora of space program, run by private organisations, some even claim to be able in the future to send ordinary people into space for an okay price. but this doesn't enchant almost anyone at all anymore. in fact, most people would not even care. the sense of, and for, adventure has been diminished. the same goes for almost every other era of life. in social, cultural, political fields, no adventure can be found anymore. the utopian ideals and movements, that reached millions of people are all gone now. the task to flip the whole world order and enter a golden era, gone now. replaced with "real politics" and the likes.
people are realistic now. pragmatic. they know it all. they "know" true adventure is just a dream. "real" life is different, they say. they strive for things that are tangible - cars, houses, money - not something that dreams are made of. they think in realistic terms and concepts - not in daring, adventureous ones. they "know" higher, exciting things are just imagination. they no longer belive in them, and do not follow them. they put their focus to what is normal, standard, common.
but this is not true.
adventure is still out there. true, real adventure. unknown things, unknown pleasure. the sweet tears of ecstasy.
dream, utopia, the wonderful - all within the reach of one's hands. breaking out of routine - the option is there all the time.
adventure has gone, not because people have found that, well, real life on this world is not pretty exciting and everything else is a "dream", but because they have given up the idea of adventure, of wonderful dreams. of utopia.
no wonder adventure is out of reach for most people, out of reach in this world - if people do not even believe in it anymore, and do not attempt to reach it at all.
you can rarely attain something if you make no attempt, right? so they don't attain adventure, and this then they use as a proof it is not attainable at all.
adventure is always a possiblity. humanity behaves as a man who has found a text about a treasure hidden in a pyramid; now that he has managed to get into the secret room, he has found it empty. he is now disappointed and on the verge of giving up. but there are more secret rooms to be found, and the treasure might very likely be out there. now, in the last centures, humanity actually stacked up a lot of these "empty treasure rooms". the socialist, the cultural and other political utopias have in the past been most of the time turned out as empty dreams. marx, the hippies, punkrock didn't flip over the world.
but that is no reason to give up, or to think adventure and utopia are actually not possible.
something that is so very much real in our imagination can simply not be impossible in the "real" world.
the treasure is still out there. go for it, and you will attain it.
About My Tracks "Trilogy Of Wisdom"
around 2000 i made the track "anything is possible", which was later released on widerstand records. this marked a point on a road i went on, which was that i tried to make my tracks continually more complex, thought out and and complicated. with this track, i felt like i had blewn it. it felt much *too* thought out, 'intellectual', quirky, i felt like i tried to hard to make it "strange" and intelligent. the joy, the liveliness that i felt in earlier tracks seemed to go missing. so i decided to call it a stop at this point, and to move in the opposite direction. to try to make basic, "simple" tracks with a fast paced feeling, enthuasism and spontanity. to try to get away from the intellectual angle i had on my music so far. the results were tracks like "urban uprising" or "acid 9", which became my most known tracks to this date. of course, as you suspect, i didn't really manage to get away from "intellectualism" and probably spend more thinking and philosophing about music than before. yet i was honest with my "keep it simple", keep it direct approach to music. eventually, the inevitable happened, and my tracks grew more complex again, the results were tracks like "don't let our dreams die", or "emerald planet".
after my break from the music scene, i actually started somewhere in the middle again - or rather, i had no idea where i started. so i went on the "complex" route of producing. this, again felt very quickly as not a very lively way to produce music again, and i felt my tracks had became cold and detached. this was were i hit a bit of an artist crisis and didn't know where to move to from that point this time. years ago i had started to develop a liking for the acid house and early techno sound of the late 80s and early 90s. this was where i orientated myself again. well, not exactly at the *sound* of this genres, (although in some tracks i did, this time), but rather, again, the whole approach at doing and producing music. to keep it extremely simply, to not overthink things, to have a kicking track that just makes you want to move, instead of overly complicating things and to strive for complexity. it goes actually way more deeper than this, maybe i will talk about it in another text. basically, i tried to ban every from of "intellectualism" from my tracks. with this approach, for a longer period of time, i never managed to create tracks more than 1-2 minutes, sometimes even much less time. the results of this period was released on my album "micro tracks for macro people" on k-net records. this may seem weird, but maybe you can imagine how limiting it is to be suspicios of any thing that could be "intellectual" in music and to not use it or remove it then.
this was also the basis of my doomcore sound, which results in around 15 tracks aptly named "doomcore (+number)" by me.
and again, the complexity of my tracks grew, but i always tried to stay carefully within the lines of anti-intellectualism. the end point of that period was the release "another uprising" which i released myself, without a label, on the internet.
by the end of 2013 i suddenly got rid of my anti-intellectualism, the story behind this could fill another text or even several ones. it came to my like a kiss in the desert, like being lost and found. it just happened. maybe i will write all this down elsewhere.
i immediately felt i should celebrate this, one of the deepest, changes in my life, by writing a piece of music about it. this was how the "trilogy of wisdom" came to be. it includes the tracks "wisdom", "take off" and "are you the goddess?". as you might suspect, i called it "trilogy of wisdom" to celebrate thinking, intellectual capability, knowledge and man's desire of exploration. finally, after more than 10 years, i felt like i was free
to use the full capacity of my brain again when doing art. anti-intellectualism be gone! this was a moment of deep liberation and joy for me, and i hope this joy is somewhat experiencable in these tracks.
after my break from the music scene, i actually started somewhere in the middle again - or rather, i had no idea where i started. so i went on the "complex" route of producing. this, again felt very quickly as not a very lively way to produce music again, and i felt my tracks had became cold and detached. this was were i hit a bit of an artist crisis and didn't know where to move to from that point this time. years ago i had started to develop a liking for the acid house and early techno sound of the late 80s and early 90s. this was where i orientated myself again. well, not exactly at the *sound* of this genres, (although in some tracks i did, this time), but rather, again, the whole approach at doing and producing music. to keep it extremely simply, to not overthink things, to have a kicking track that just makes you want to move, instead of overly complicating things and to strive for complexity. it goes actually way more deeper than this, maybe i will talk about it in another text. basically, i tried to ban every from of "intellectualism" from my tracks. with this approach, for a longer period of time, i never managed to create tracks more than 1-2 minutes, sometimes even much less time. the results of this period was released on my album "micro tracks for macro people" on k-net records. this may seem weird, but maybe you can imagine how limiting it is to be suspicios of any thing that could be "intellectual" in music and to not use it or remove it then.
this was also the basis of my doomcore sound, which results in around 15 tracks aptly named "doomcore (+number)" by me.
and again, the complexity of my tracks grew, but i always tried to stay carefully within the lines of anti-intellectualism. the end point of that period was the release "another uprising" which i released myself, without a label, on the internet.
by the end of 2013 i suddenly got rid of my anti-intellectualism, the story behind this could fill another text or even several ones. it came to my like a kiss in the desert, like being lost and found. it just happened. maybe i will write all this down elsewhere.
i immediately felt i should celebrate this, one of the deepest, changes in my life, by writing a piece of music about it. this was how the "trilogy of wisdom" came to be. it includes the tracks "wisdom", "take off" and "are you the goddess?". as you might suspect, i called it "trilogy of wisdom" to celebrate thinking, intellectual capability, knowledge and man's desire of exploration. finally, after more than 10 years, i felt like i was free
to use the full capacity of my brain again when doing art. anti-intellectualism be gone! this was a moment of deep liberation and joy for me, and i hope this joy is somewhat experiencable in these tracks.
Urban Uprising And Emerald Planet
my tracks Urban Uprising and Emerald Planet are both parts of the same thought (i suppose), polar opposites of a concept. i wrote Urban Uprising in 2001, final touch in 2002 and it was released later that year. i wrote Emerald Planet in 2003 and it was released in 2005.
just as Emerald Planet, Urban Uprising arose out of a certain mindset. and it was my dearest wish to express and communicate this mindset with this track. most people believe in the concept of "good", or "positive". and these who are cynical or negative retain some notion of the good. if they don't think society or the world is good, they at least think some of their social surrounding or activites are somewhat good. it gives them comfort and something that they can find solace him. before i made Urban Uprising, i embraced the mindset that there was no good at all to be found in the world. no real happiness. no real joy. no hope. no solution. no exit. no light of the day. that all the nice words of the philosophers who talked about tasks, goals, ways to attain something real, pure and good was mere children's wishes, pipe dreams. no solution - not political, cultural, social, philosphical or in any other way. that the notion of "good" itself had to be abandoned. but i didn't embrace this in a cynical or negative way - i didn't feel put down by this. in itself, this felt as something "positive". as pure freedom. if you don't have to strive for any "good" anymore you can enjoy life at is is - finally. this was the point my thoughts circled around, and that i wanted to drive home. 1000s of years people had been oppressed and slaughtered for a "higher good". so let us forget any "higher good" forever!
it also didn't mean that i would not experience happyiness or laughter or joy - but happiness embedded in real life, in the actual world, not a serene, exalted joy, that the philosophers talked about. as i said, i put all this to "pipe dreams" of history.
so Urban Uprising arised of 100% nihil if you wish.
now, Emerald Planet came from the exact different direction. with it, i wanted to express love. sweet, pure, honest, overarching, total and 100% love. this was what i wanted to spread, to send out in the world.
happiness, joy, love, sweetness, enjoyment, complete bliss became a sudden possibility again, a thing that is real. one of my inspirations that i wanted to follow on was the music of David Lynch and Julee Cruise, which was produced by Angelo Badalamenti. of course i didn't want to copy anything, i just found a certain mood, expression in these songs, that i truly liked. listen to a song like "Falling" or "The Nightingale", and maybe you can find some sort of resemblance in Emerald Planet? maybe it's just in my thought.
so this was the tiny message i wanted to give to the world. did i succeed? hard to say. but maybe i could give some happiness to the world.
note: this might seem like a personal story of extreme moodswings to some people but it is not. as i said, i didn't really feel sad or down about the first idea. it was - to a large part - a 'philosophical' conception (even though i often hate this word). same for the second part.
just as Emerald Planet, Urban Uprising arose out of a certain mindset. and it was my dearest wish to express and communicate this mindset with this track. most people believe in the concept of "good", or "positive". and these who are cynical or negative retain some notion of the good. if they don't think society or the world is good, they at least think some of their social surrounding or activites are somewhat good. it gives them comfort and something that they can find solace him. before i made Urban Uprising, i embraced the mindset that there was no good at all to be found in the world. no real happiness. no real joy. no hope. no solution. no exit. no light of the day. that all the nice words of the philosophers who talked about tasks, goals, ways to attain something real, pure and good was mere children's wishes, pipe dreams. no solution - not political, cultural, social, philosphical or in any other way. that the notion of "good" itself had to be abandoned. but i didn't embrace this in a cynical or negative way - i didn't feel put down by this. in itself, this felt as something "positive". as pure freedom. if you don't have to strive for any "good" anymore you can enjoy life at is is - finally. this was the point my thoughts circled around, and that i wanted to drive home. 1000s of years people had been oppressed and slaughtered for a "higher good". so let us forget any "higher good" forever!
it also didn't mean that i would not experience happyiness or laughter or joy - but happiness embedded in real life, in the actual world, not a serene, exalted joy, that the philosophers talked about. as i said, i put all this to "pipe dreams" of history.
so Urban Uprising arised of 100% nihil if you wish.
now, Emerald Planet came from the exact different direction. with it, i wanted to express love. sweet, pure, honest, overarching, total and 100% love. this was what i wanted to spread, to send out in the world.
happiness, joy, love, sweetness, enjoyment, complete bliss became a sudden possibility again, a thing that is real. one of my inspirations that i wanted to follow on was the music of David Lynch and Julee Cruise, which was produced by Angelo Badalamenti. of course i didn't want to copy anything, i just found a certain mood, expression in these songs, that i truly liked. listen to a song like "Falling" or "The Nightingale", and maybe you can find some sort of resemblance in Emerald Planet? maybe it's just in my thought.
so this was the tiny message i wanted to give to the world. did i succeed? hard to say. but maybe i could give some happiness to the world.
note: this might seem like a personal story of extreme moodswings to some people but it is not. as i said, i didn't really feel sad or down about the first idea. it was - to a large part - a 'philosophical' conception (even though i often hate this word). same for the second part.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)