after 17 Years of doing music in just intonation, microtuning, xenharmonics, i have felt as i have hit a border with that approach alone. i eventually started to abandon Just Intonation in my music works, and employed the 12 TET system again - shame on me. i didn't think much about it; it happened naturally; and it felt necessary.
in the end this led to a realisation, and a new theory of mine. it's just a new theory; i haven't sonically tested it much yet; so it could be scrapped in a while; or it could hold true.
What i realised was this: maybe music is exactly organised in a way i always rejected; which is, that intervals are grouped in categories such as sixths, fifths, thirds and so on. i always tried to get rid of this system; it seemed so traditional; so western, and non-sensical. why should a pure interval of 5/4 and 5/6 and 6/7 called be a "third"? it seemed to me to be completely different individuals, with different ratios; only grouped together because it was traditionally done so in western music.
but now i realised, there might be actually more to it. so i am trying to devise a system, in which actually these "intervals" are the important factor, and *not* the tunings, may they be just, equal, or mean etc. well this only half the truth - i think they are half important.
so i am thinking now, that the harmonic structure of a song, of a melody actually lies in these intervals; the primes, the seconds, the thirds and so on, and the tuning, in this aspect, is not so important. at first, at least. yet, at the same time, it is also very important. but more of this later.
this means, when i come up with a melody, i think of how i use primes, thirds, fifths, and not the intervals, the tuning directly; it is not so much a factor if these are equal tuned, or just tuned, or different and so on.
from one viewpoint - but there is also another viewpoint. this might sound paradoxical, but i think both - the interval groupings as i mentioned - and the actual tuning, are very important, each in their own field. there are two parts to the melody, harmonies, structure of a song, a piece, and one is the groupings as i mentioned, and the second is the "tuning" then again. the german word for "tuning" is "stimmung", which also means "mood" or "emotion", and i think this holds some truth. the groupings lie the framework for the melody, but the "stimmung", the tuning, adds the mood. so a minor key has a different "mood" than a major key (although i reject the - boring - notion that minor would mean "sad" and major "cheerful"), and a JI key or scale has a wholly different mood altogether. this may seem very basic and logical, but for me it was a breakthrough.
okay, as i said, so far this may seem basic, or not so interesting, or not as important yet. i think it is better to illustrate this by showing the practical implications.
one thing, is, as i said, the consequence, that i do not care so much about the actual interval, the just ratio, the actual ratio anymore. a second is a second no matter if it is 9/8 or 16/15 or 17/16. a fifth stays a fifth no matter if it is 2/3 or 5/7 or 5/8. this is something i haven't done before; i calculated each interval carefully before. and i never would have considered an interval with a different ratio to be actually the same.
but there is also another important consequence. just or pure intervals themselves are suddenly not necessary anymore. the tuning adds the "mood". so i do not have to use just intervals; they add a certain mood, but i can also use other tunings, other scales. a just interval adds a wholly different mood to a melody, and it is thus important wether one uses it or not; but it does not change the underlying harmonical structure, from a certain point of view. a JI (or 12 TET) third stays a third.
this has even further consequences. it means i can use intervals that are not related to simple intervals - that are wholly "detuned" - to add a specific mood, for example. it also gives 12 TET some credibility again.
it had always occured to me in the last years, that pure JI melodies often seem - a bit dull. now i understood why this was. they lacked the "tuning" - the "mood". a certain "detunedness" can create a powerful (i am sure JI can do this too - both are important).
this means JI, and microtuning, is not the "end" to it. it is just a plateau. it might be time to move on from it, and explore further avenues.
i should note that i lack knowledge of most of western harmonic theory, as i tried to stay clear of it to come up with "new" things, so it might be that a lot of what i wrote is already common knowledge to many. but to me, it was new, and i think it holds a lot of possibilites.
On My Music
i found that music, and art, can often be reduced to a few core ideas that have driven the artist, when one analyses and reduces it. for my music, there were always some ideas that were stronger than the rest.
one of them was to combine techno music with the avantgarde. i will use the term "techno" in this text, instead of 'electronic dance music', as this is closer to my intentions.
i loved techno. and i loved avantgarde it. so i was happy to get to know music by a few artists, who two had these same interest in music. this convinced me, that this was a viable road to go on.
yet, the questions, is how to combine the two? as most people would think these are irreconcilable. 'serious' artists sneered at techno music; and a lot of techno enthusiasts had no interest in avantgarde music and art.
also, the main problem was, that i wanted to really fuse, mend them together. if i hadn't had this goal, my task would've become easier. i could have just added techno samples to an avantgarde piece, or the other way round. or create some art that has merely references to the 'techno culture'.
i wanted to make music that was really techno, music to dance to, to go wild too. but at the same time avantgarade, music for the mind, to ponder on.
for the first years, in my task, i tried to create avantgarde pieces of music, with a big nod to movie score music and dark ambient; and fuse them with hardcore dance beats. yes, that sounds a bit - unlikely. but i tried my best to succeed, and saw no reason why i should fail. again, i tried not do to merely "avantgarde with added beat".
then my music got exceedingly complex and complicated, and i felt it was slipping through my hands, as to me it was losing it's power. so i eventually turned it the other way round. creating techno tracks, with techno structures, and anything techno about them, but with avantgarde concepts and sounds.
again, eventually i felt this road was over, so now i try to combine both these concepts together.
this was my wish; to fuse avantgarde and techno; and i hope to see more projects and artists like this in the future.
examples of this music:
first phase: my track "the truth"
second phase: "fourth uprising"
third phase: "glowing cuboids"
one of them was to combine techno music with the avantgarde. i will use the term "techno" in this text, instead of 'electronic dance music', as this is closer to my intentions.
i loved techno. and i loved avantgarde it. so i was happy to get to know music by a few artists, who two had these same interest in music. this convinced me, that this was a viable road to go on.
yet, the questions, is how to combine the two? as most people would think these are irreconcilable. 'serious' artists sneered at techno music; and a lot of techno enthusiasts had no interest in avantgarde music and art.
also, the main problem was, that i wanted to really fuse, mend them together. if i hadn't had this goal, my task would've become easier. i could have just added techno samples to an avantgarde piece, or the other way round. or create some art that has merely references to the 'techno culture'.
i wanted to make music that was really techno, music to dance to, to go wild too. but at the same time avantgarade, music for the mind, to ponder on.
for the first years, in my task, i tried to create avantgarde pieces of music, with a big nod to movie score music and dark ambient; and fuse them with hardcore dance beats. yes, that sounds a bit - unlikely. but i tried my best to succeed, and saw no reason why i should fail. again, i tried not do to merely "avantgarde with added beat".
then my music got exceedingly complex and complicated, and i felt it was slipping through my hands, as to me it was losing it's power. so i eventually turned it the other way round. creating techno tracks, with techno structures, and anything techno about them, but with avantgarde concepts and sounds.
again, eventually i felt this road was over, so now i try to combine both these concepts together.
this was my wish; to fuse avantgarde and techno; and i hope to see more projects and artists like this in the future.
examples of this music:
first phase: my track "the truth"
second phase: "fourth uprising"
third phase: "glowing cuboids"
Revolution Of The Mind
i talk about revolution, uprising, and support a free society and communal forms of economy. in my opinion, this is correct. but there is also another a thing. yes, the state, the nation, the capital, should be fought. but, also, in fact, there is no state. no nation. no capital. these are just ideas, merely existing in the imagination of people. you might say, well, of course there are states, usa, germany, france, there are governments, laws. yes, these things, more or less, exist. but these are not what people think when they say "state". they don't fit to the ideas they represent.
just open your favorite newspaper, or in our digital age, your favorite newspage. read the stories. for example: the law is part of the government, of the state. but if you read the newsstories, you will find that not only the gangsters and outsiders break the law regularly, but also common people, also the upper class - and also the politicians themselves. the law, as the idea it is put forward, doesn't exist. has never existed. sure, there is police, and there are laws that are written on paper, but these are far away from the ideal of law that is put forward. you could say this about almost any other aspect of government. the goverment is supposed to support the social good; does it do this on a larger scale? the goverment has an army to defend the nation; is it used this way (and not to attack other nations for reasons such as power and greed)? so, yes, there is a thing called "the state". but, it is far different from the idea of the state that people have in their head.
there is no government and no state in the real, 'philosophical', coherent idea of these words. similiar there are no markets, no nations, no economics.
capitalist and goverment institutions are upheld because a lot of people profiteer from these. but these people, businessman and politicians, do not even believe in these things themselves or follow "the rules". they are often the most corrupt of all.
but also in a negative sense states do not exist. there is no body of people that would coherently defend the revolt class against revolt. not in a decisive, true way at least. i'm sure if revolution happens most of the politicans, policemen, supporters would scatter in panic, and try to flee or run over to the other side.
because the state is just an idea.
it runs deeper than that; it takes longer to explain; as usual. but be sure, the state and hierarchy is just a thought in your head.
poor revolutionaries of the past, waiting, cumulating their power for a final attack on the hierarchy that never comes, while all they had had to do was to get the idea of "state" and "hierarchy" out of their head, to be able to be free, to attain real freedom.
if we want revolution, the important and main task is to free the minds of people, so that they are able to get these ideas that repress them out of their head; to abandon the ideas of a goverment, a state, of capitalism.
this by no means does make obselete the need for tangible activism too. riots, revolts, uprisings are necessary too, as are local and international organisation. but these have to be entwined in the task to give people the chance to free their minds too.
in the end, both things strengthen each other.
just open your favorite newspaper, or in our digital age, your favorite newspage. read the stories. for example: the law is part of the government, of the state. but if you read the newsstories, you will find that not only the gangsters and outsiders break the law regularly, but also common people, also the upper class - and also the politicians themselves. the law, as the idea it is put forward, doesn't exist. has never existed. sure, there is police, and there are laws that are written on paper, but these are far away from the ideal of law that is put forward. you could say this about almost any other aspect of government. the goverment is supposed to support the social good; does it do this on a larger scale? the goverment has an army to defend the nation; is it used this way (and not to attack other nations for reasons such as power and greed)? so, yes, there is a thing called "the state". but, it is far different from the idea of the state that people have in their head.
there is no government and no state in the real, 'philosophical', coherent idea of these words. similiar there are no markets, no nations, no economics.
capitalist and goverment institutions are upheld because a lot of people profiteer from these. but these people, businessman and politicians, do not even believe in these things themselves or follow "the rules". they are often the most corrupt of all.
but also in a negative sense states do not exist. there is no body of people that would coherently defend the revolt class against revolt. not in a decisive, true way at least. i'm sure if revolution happens most of the politicans, policemen, supporters would scatter in panic, and try to flee or run over to the other side.
because the state is just an idea.
it runs deeper than that; it takes longer to explain; as usual. but be sure, the state and hierarchy is just a thought in your head.
poor revolutionaries of the past, waiting, cumulating their power for a final attack on the hierarchy that never comes, while all they had had to do was to get the idea of "state" and "hierarchy" out of their head, to be able to be free, to attain real freedom.
if we want revolution, the important and main task is to free the minds of people, so that they are able to get these ideas that repress them out of their head; to abandon the ideas of a goverment, a state, of capitalism.
this by no means does make obselete the need for tangible activism too. riots, revolts, uprisings are necessary too, as are local and international organisation. but these have to be entwined in the task to give people the chance to free their minds too.
in the end, both things strengthen each other.
The Key
i know the answer and i know it not. i know nothing and i know everything.
the key, the answer you are seeking, is - yourself.
that is the most important thing. the major thing. the mover of all things.
how do i mean this? for example, you, as everyone is facing a multitude of problems in life. you will never solve them - until you make peace with yourself. accept yourself, and further yourself. love yourself.
you will fail the most profane tasks in life if you are in fight with yourself (in fact, many people who are in disarray with their selves - for example while being heartbroken - will even fail to go out regularly and socialise, or eat enough). when you are whole, when you are in touch with yourself, you can excel at the most complicate and intricate tasks.
or, the struggle of common life doesn't interest you as much, at least not on the everday level. and you seek wisdom,
the anwers, a purpose, a goal in life. again, you can only find this - and you will find this - if you get in touch with yourself.
the self is the key to anything.
of course, so far almost any social, religious, political structure - the church, the state, capitalism tells you to *get rid* of yourself. in fact this is the very basis of all social structures that existed so far. it lies at the beginning of religion; in any major religion its priests or monks will tell you that the way is to abandon yourself, to grow over yourself, to learn to get rid of it. then you will find peace and enlightment.
but this is wrong. it is exactly the other way round. if you move closer to yourself, then you can move ahead.
so further yourself. support yourself. explore yourself. get to know yourself. get in contact with your self.
love your self.
the key, the answer you are seeking, is - yourself.
that is the most important thing. the major thing. the mover of all things.
how do i mean this? for example, you, as everyone is facing a multitude of problems in life. you will never solve them - until you make peace with yourself. accept yourself, and further yourself. love yourself.
you will fail the most profane tasks in life if you are in fight with yourself (in fact, many people who are in disarray with their selves - for example while being heartbroken - will even fail to go out regularly and socialise, or eat enough). when you are whole, when you are in touch with yourself, you can excel at the most complicate and intricate tasks.
or, the struggle of common life doesn't interest you as much, at least not on the everday level. and you seek wisdom,
the anwers, a purpose, a goal in life. again, you can only find this - and you will find this - if you get in touch with yourself.
the self is the key to anything.
of course, so far almost any social, religious, political structure - the church, the state, capitalism tells you to *get rid* of yourself. in fact this is the very basis of all social structures that existed so far. it lies at the beginning of religion; in any major religion its priests or monks will tell you that the way is to abandon yourself, to grow over yourself, to learn to get rid of it. then you will find peace and enlightment.
but this is wrong. it is exactly the other way round. if you move closer to yourself, then you can move ahead.
so further yourself. support yourself. explore yourself. get to know yourself. get in contact with your self.
love your self.
Macht
ich habe schon viele texte und theorien über die strukturen von macht, hierarchie und ausbeutung gelesen. doch wenige haben mich so sehr überzeugt wie die, die étienne de la boétie in "von der freiwilligen knechtschaft" darlegt.
ich wurde auf den text aufmerksam, da gustav landauer sehr viel von diesem text hielt, ihn überschwenglich lobte, und auch, soweit ich weiss, ins deutsche übersetzte.
der text wurde im 16ten jahrhundert geschrieben, und richtet sich vorallem gegen die absolutistische bzw. tyrannische monarchie. ich denke aber, man kann ihn auf alle hierarchische staaten, und hierarchien an sich, auch rein soziale, beziehen.
étienne de la boétie wirft die frage auf, wie ein einzelner, der despot, ein volk von millionen beherschen kann. (bei modernen staaten müsste man dann den "einzelnen" durch die entsprechenden machtzirkel ersetzen).
die waffengewalt seiner wachen und untergebenen können nicht der grund sein, schreibt la boétie, denn es sind mehr despoten von ihren wachen vergiftet, erschlagen usw. wurden als das sie ihn ewig geschützt hätten. ebenso kann man sagen, dass es auch die armeen und polizei nicht sein kann, auf der die macht gründet, dann auch viele despoten sind schon von ihrer eigenen armee gestürzt wurden.
boétie beschreibt die funktionsweise von macht wie folgt.
an der spitze steht der einzelne. aber dieser einzelne hat 5 menschen um sich herum, die von seiner macht am meisten profitieren, und deswegen alles tun, um ihn an der macht zu halten (die zahl 5 ist natürlich nur ein beispiel, eine metapher). diese 5 wiederum haben jeweils auch wieder 5 um sich, die auch wieder von ihnen profitieren, und diese 5 nun wieder an der macht halten. diese 5 haben dann auch wieder 5 und so. so geht es in der hierarchie herab, und die anzahl wird immer grösser, bis zu den machthabern auf lokalster und kleiner ebene.
alle erhoffen sich davon zu profitieren die jeweils über ihnen liegenden an der macht zu halten bzw. sie milde zu stimmen oder sie auf ihre seite zu siehen - und nicht gegen sie zu revoltieren.
das ist ein muster, dass mir immer wieder ins auge fällt, wenn ich machtsysteme anschaue. boéties beschreibung ist meines erachtens sehr zutreffend und brilliant analysiert.
und ich denke es gilt eben für heutige gesellschaften noch genauso wie für die despotie damals.
auch heute denken fast alle menschen, sie profitieren, wenn sie das machtsystem erhalten, anstatt es anzugreifen.
der "einfache mann" sowieso, der sich von ruhigen verhältnissen mehr erhofft - geld, luxus, "ruhe" - anstatt von einem umsturz. aber selbst die menschen auf der untersten ebene, arbeitslose, ausgestossene, rebellieren nicht, weil sie immer noch denken, sie hätten einen vorteil, wenn sie sich dem system fügen.
in wirklichkeit stimmt dies jedoch nicht. der überwiegende teil der bevölkerung hat einen nachteil von dem jetzigem system, und seine situation könnte sich unendlich mal bessern, wenn es einen umsturz, gäbe, eine revolution.
das ist, was die menschen begreifen sollten.
ich wurde auf den text aufmerksam, da gustav landauer sehr viel von diesem text hielt, ihn überschwenglich lobte, und auch, soweit ich weiss, ins deutsche übersetzte.
der text wurde im 16ten jahrhundert geschrieben, und richtet sich vorallem gegen die absolutistische bzw. tyrannische monarchie. ich denke aber, man kann ihn auf alle hierarchische staaten, und hierarchien an sich, auch rein soziale, beziehen.
étienne de la boétie wirft die frage auf, wie ein einzelner, der despot, ein volk von millionen beherschen kann. (bei modernen staaten müsste man dann den "einzelnen" durch die entsprechenden machtzirkel ersetzen).
die waffengewalt seiner wachen und untergebenen können nicht der grund sein, schreibt la boétie, denn es sind mehr despoten von ihren wachen vergiftet, erschlagen usw. wurden als das sie ihn ewig geschützt hätten. ebenso kann man sagen, dass es auch die armeen und polizei nicht sein kann, auf der die macht gründet, dann auch viele despoten sind schon von ihrer eigenen armee gestürzt wurden.
boétie beschreibt die funktionsweise von macht wie folgt.
an der spitze steht der einzelne. aber dieser einzelne hat 5 menschen um sich herum, die von seiner macht am meisten profitieren, und deswegen alles tun, um ihn an der macht zu halten (die zahl 5 ist natürlich nur ein beispiel, eine metapher). diese 5 wiederum haben jeweils auch wieder 5 um sich, die auch wieder von ihnen profitieren, und diese 5 nun wieder an der macht halten. diese 5 haben dann auch wieder 5 und so. so geht es in der hierarchie herab, und die anzahl wird immer grösser, bis zu den machthabern auf lokalster und kleiner ebene.
alle erhoffen sich davon zu profitieren die jeweils über ihnen liegenden an der macht zu halten bzw. sie milde zu stimmen oder sie auf ihre seite zu siehen - und nicht gegen sie zu revoltieren.
das ist ein muster, dass mir immer wieder ins auge fällt, wenn ich machtsysteme anschaue. boéties beschreibung ist meines erachtens sehr zutreffend und brilliant analysiert.
und ich denke es gilt eben für heutige gesellschaften noch genauso wie für die despotie damals.
auch heute denken fast alle menschen, sie profitieren, wenn sie das machtsystem erhalten, anstatt es anzugreifen.
der "einfache mann" sowieso, der sich von ruhigen verhältnissen mehr erhofft - geld, luxus, "ruhe" - anstatt von einem umsturz. aber selbst die menschen auf der untersten ebene, arbeitslose, ausgestossene, rebellieren nicht, weil sie immer noch denken, sie hätten einen vorteil, wenn sie sich dem system fügen.
in wirklichkeit stimmt dies jedoch nicht. der überwiegende teil der bevölkerung hat einen nachteil von dem jetzigem system, und seine situation könnte sich unendlich mal bessern, wenn es einen umsturz, gäbe, eine revolution.
das ist, was die menschen begreifen sollten.
The Subjectivity Of Ideas
many people hold preconceived ideas; of what is moral, what is ethical; how society should be constructed. but also other ideas, rules, conceptions, of how humans should behave, or what it means to be a human, or how life - especially the life of others - should be. they have concepts, ideologies, "philosophies", of how the world is, society is, and how it should be constructed and kept, and how humans have to fit to these ideas.
this alone is already problematic. can be problematic. but the problem runs much deeper.
think of the ideology of race. the conception of race, is, of course, nonsense. but there is a larger problem. people are not only racist for "self-gain" or because they're assholes - well, they are, but there is another problem too. they really *believe* in their racial bigotry. they think, that what they believe, is the *truth*. they don't think, 'well, i have white skin, so i could gain something from a society run according to white supremacy'. they *really* think whites would be superior. and this is the big problem. they have their ideas in their head, conceptions, and they can't get away from them, not in an easy way, because they hold them to be truth.
similiar goes on conceptions of how men and women should behave, and that they are intrinsically different from each other, and women shouldn't be allowed to do some things men do. or they believe, that there should be different classes in society, and the rich and powerful be above the rest.
people who put forward these ideas do not solely do this for "egoism", or self-gain. they *really* think these ideas are true.
so, this makes us arrive at the problem. which is, that they're stuck with these ideas. they can't challenge them - not easily - not get rid of them, change them, take away their power. they got a "fixed" idea - and are its servant, because they lack the power to push the ideas over.
in the end, *any* idea is subjective. if there would be real objectivity, even then, at least man in general would lack the ability to reach it. so, we have to realize everything we hold to be true is subjective.
this is one of the most important abilities to attain; to have the ability to challenge one's own ideas, and conceptions, no matter how much "objective" and "the truth" they seem to be. to be able to move them, to alter them. to be be able to create new ideas and discard ones that have been proved to be questionable.
this is of course what conservatives and reactionaries *hate* about what they call "liberals", "leftists", "anarchists". a liberal could, for example say: 'okay, the idea of marriage, or the church seems to be useful to some people. so they should follow it. but do not go to the extremes; and they should be allowed to not follow both instutions if they wish". because for conservatives, the idea of church, or marriage, or state, or nation is "untouchable". they cant move or change these ideas in their head; and do not want anyone else to change them either.
yet, even the "liberals" have their own fixed ideas too; they rarely get rid of the idea of a central goverment itself, or getting rid of capitalist economics altogether. it's something they can't "get their head round too".
because, for them these ideas too are unchangable, untouchable. but no idea should be like that. every idea should be open to question, to debate, and, when becoming to appear negative and doubtful - to be discarded.
and even the most radical anarchists still have their dogmas, that they can't change.
ideas should not become static, unquestionable, solid, fixed. they should be able to be changed and be moved.
this alone is already problematic. can be problematic. but the problem runs much deeper.
think of the ideology of race. the conception of race, is, of course, nonsense. but there is a larger problem. people are not only racist for "self-gain" or because they're assholes - well, they are, but there is another problem too. they really *believe* in their racial bigotry. they think, that what they believe, is the *truth*. they don't think, 'well, i have white skin, so i could gain something from a society run according to white supremacy'. they *really* think whites would be superior. and this is the big problem. they have their ideas in their head, conceptions, and they can't get away from them, not in an easy way, because they hold them to be truth.
similiar goes on conceptions of how men and women should behave, and that they are intrinsically different from each other, and women shouldn't be allowed to do some things men do. or they believe, that there should be different classes in society, and the rich and powerful be above the rest.
people who put forward these ideas do not solely do this for "egoism", or self-gain. they *really* think these ideas are true.
so, this makes us arrive at the problem. which is, that they're stuck with these ideas. they can't challenge them - not easily - not get rid of them, change them, take away their power. they got a "fixed" idea - and are its servant, because they lack the power to push the ideas over.
in the end, *any* idea is subjective. if there would be real objectivity, even then, at least man in general would lack the ability to reach it. so, we have to realize everything we hold to be true is subjective.
this is one of the most important abilities to attain; to have the ability to challenge one's own ideas, and conceptions, no matter how much "objective" and "the truth" they seem to be. to be able to move them, to alter them. to be be able to create new ideas and discard ones that have been proved to be questionable.
this is of course what conservatives and reactionaries *hate* about what they call "liberals", "leftists", "anarchists". a liberal could, for example say: 'okay, the idea of marriage, or the church seems to be useful to some people. so they should follow it. but do not go to the extremes; and they should be allowed to not follow both instutions if they wish". because for conservatives, the idea of church, or marriage, or state, or nation is "untouchable". they cant move or change these ideas in their head; and do not want anyone else to change them either.
yet, even the "liberals" have their own fixed ideas too; they rarely get rid of the idea of a central goverment itself, or getting rid of capitalist economics altogether. it's something they can't "get their head round too".
because, for them these ideas too are unchangable, untouchable. but no idea should be like that. every idea should be open to question, to debate, and, when becoming to appear negative and doubtful - to be discarded.
and even the most radical anarchists still have their dogmas, that they can't change.
ideas should not become static, unquestionable, solid, fixed. they should be able to be changed and be moved.
Cyborg Coffee - New Webzine
i started a new fanzine for hardcore techno, experimental electronics and also anarchist texts. it is digital and web, blog, based. it will not have a monthly release or so, but i will put texts up as they become available.
the focus will be on the abovementioned things, cultural musings and anarchist politics.
if anyone is interested in writing texts, or record reviews, for the zine, contact me at low_entropy@widerstand.org
the zine can be found at: http://cyborgcoffee.blogspot.com/
so far it is a collection of texts i wrote on several occasions about hardcore, music in general, and anarchism, that had been published on various source.
new content will, hopefully, come soon.
the focus will be on the abovementioned things, cultural musings and anarchist politics.
if anyone is interested in writing texts, or record reviews, for the zine, contact me at low_entropy@widerstand.org
the zine can be found at: http://cyborgcoffee.blogspot.com/
so far it is a collection of texts i wrote on several occasions about hardcore, music in general, and anarchism, that had been published on various source.
new content will, hopefully, come soon.
The Story Of PCP
to write down the whole story, history and context of pcp would demand a whole book, or rather, a whole library of books. so excuse that i will only focus on parts and occassions of the pcp history, and can not adress the whole - yet.
about the beginnings of pcp, not that much is known. the two key creaters seem to have been marc acardipane and thorsten lambert. acardipane played guitar before that, and had various rap projects. the first outing of pcp was, aptly named, a release by mescalinum united called into mekong center. this is still far, but not that far, from the sound pcp got later quite famous for. we find some sort of a cross between house, electro and EBM sounds, but also plenty of new ideas. this was 1989. the end of 1989. the decade ended. the pcp saga had begun.
of early influences is not much known, or rather, not much specific. in the alien underground interview marc acardipane denounced the industrial EBM influence of the likes of front 242, yet in another interview he says this, together with detroit techno, was the starting point for his own sound. this confusing stance on things runs through the history of pcp. they are not known to play their cards too much in the open, for good reasons.
PCP continued, and with the movers first outing, frontal sickness volume 1, and mescalinum united's reflections of 2017 ep, two of the most important records in the history of techno, in the history of hardcore, and in the history of music have been made. much has been said about these tracks elsewhere; i will leave it at this short notice right now.
in these early days, it was the height of the first techno wave, in germany, europe and britain. PCP thrived in this milieu, and as far as i know, were very welcome by this scene. we got plenty of interviews in early german and other techno fanzines, they played a lot of parties, even at the biggest rave than, the mayday rave by low spirit. hardcore and gabber was also a new thing; and pcp paved the way for that sound; they were celebrated by the dutch and belgium gabber crowd, and were legends even back then. but, even at that point, acardipane in interviews expressed the motion that, especially in germany, they were ignored in light of other DJs and producers of the techno scene who made it "big".
indeed, the techno landscape was changing. techno was no longer one sound, one family, one unity. a DJ wouldn't play all styles in one set anymore. the scene fragmented into further subscenes, such as breakbeat, jungle, "intelligent", hardtrance, and hardcore and gabber. the DJs and producers adopted, and went with the flow, instead of beating the system. pcp did not. they stayed true to their core. they kept putting out hardcore sounds en masse. for the german techno scene, this became problematic. hardcore was now seen as "childish", not being liked by the now stucked up crowd who demanded "intelligent" and "minimal" sounds.
this explained why, while other DJs that started together with PCP, rose to fame, mainstream fame, pcp did not, and instead became more obscure.
pcp did not only stay with their original sound, they expanded it, explored other venues. i think any type of dance and electronic music must have been covered by their catalogue. they ventured into krautrock, goa, jungle, EBM, speedcore, abstract; anything: you named it, they did it.
in this "second" period, in my opinion, fall some of the most interesting releases of pcp fall, as the outings by miro, or the movers countdown trax EP, or the jupiter pulse of mescalinum united.
in an interview, miro expressed disappointment that seemingly everyone had forgotton about pcp. and this was largely the case; pcp was more of a "secret hint", passed on by an elite circle. the parties were usually headlined by someone else.
yet, the tide for pcp changed once again. or rather, it ended, in a true phoenix style. pcp ceased to exist by the year 1997. but this was also the time when, as a live act, or marc acardipane as a DJ, under various names, such as marshall masters or kotzaak, they were increasingly booked at the "big" parties again, especially in holland and belgium. they released a marshall masters album which sold weld. "i like it loud" became a hit for the first time. acardipane records was started, which later led into resident e records.
so, the recognition was finally there. recognition by a larger audience.
after the 2000s, things changed even more. by the breakcore, the techno, the experimental hardcore crowed, pcp was no longer seen as "childish" finally anymore (yes, there was a time when you were ridiculed by self-appointed elitists, when you stated that you listened to pcp.)
pcp was rediscoverd again, its mysterios, excellent sound came into the open again.
and, a new generation of artists, of listeners, of human beings, discovered pcp newly again.
about the beginnings of pcp, not that much is known. the two key creaters seem to have been marc acardipane and thorsten lambert. acardipane played guitar before that, and had various rap projects. the first outing of pcp was, aptly named, a release by mescalinum united called into mekong center. this is still far, but not that far, from the sound pcp got later quite famous for. we find some sort of a cross between house, electro and EBM sounds, but also plenty of new ideas. this was 1989. the end of 1989. the decade ended. the pcp saga had begun.
of early influences is not much known, or rather, not much specific. in the alien underground interview marc acardipane denounced the industrial EBM influence of the likes of front 242, yet in another interview he says this, together with detroit techno, was the starting point for his own sound. this confusing stance on things runs through the history of pcp. they are not known to play their cards too much in the open, for good reasons.
PCP continued, and with the movers first outing, frontal sickness volume 1, and mescalinum united's reflections of 2017 ep, two of the most important records in the history of techno, in the history of hardcore, and in the history of music have been made. much has been said about these tracks elsewhere; i will leave it at this short notice right now.
in these early days, it was the height of the first techno wave, in germany, europe and britain. PCP thrived in this milieu, and as far as i know, were very welcome by this scene. we got plenty of interviews in early german and other techno fanzines, they played a lot of parties, even at the biggest rave than, the mayday rave by low spirit. hardcore and gabber was also a new thing; and pcp paved the way for that sound; they were celebrated by the dutch and belgium gabber crowd, and were legends even back then. but, even at that point, acardipane in interviews expressed the motion that, especially in germany, they were ignored in light of other DJs and producers of the techno scene who made it "big".
indeed, the techno landscape was changing. techno was no longer one sound, one family, one unity. a DJ wouldn't play all styles in one set anymore. the scene fragmented into further subscenes, such as breakbeat, jungle, "intelligent", hardtrance, and hardcore and gabber. the DJs and producers adopted, and went with the flow, instead of beating the system. pcp did not. they stayed true to their core. they kept putting out hardcore sounds en masse. for the german techno scene, this became problematic. hardcore was now seen as "childish", not being liked by the now stucked up crowd who demanded "intelligent" and "minimal" sounds.
this explained why, while other DJs that started together with PCP, rose to fame, mainstream fame, pcp did not, and instead became more obscure.
pcp did not only stay with their original sound, they expanded it, explored other venues. i think any type of dance and electronic music must have been covered by their catalogue. they ventured into krautrock, goa, jungle, EBM, speedcore, abstract; anything: you named it, they did it.
in this "second" period, in my opinion, fall some of the most interesting releases of pcp fall, as the outings by miro, or the movers countdown trax EP, or the jupiter pulse of mescalinum united.
in an interview, miro expressed disappointment that seemingly everyone had forgotton about pcp. and this was largely the case; pcp was more of a "secret hint", passed on by an elite circle. the parties were usually headlined by someone else.
yet, the tide for pcp changed once again. or rather, it ended, in a true phoenix style. pcp ceased to exist by the year 1997. but this was also the time when, as a live act, or marc acardipane as a DJ, under various names, such as marshall masters or kotzaak, they were increasingly booked at the "big" parties again, especially in holland and belgium. they released a marshall masters album which sold weld. "i like it loud" became a hit for the first time. acardipane records was started, which later led into resident e records.
so, the recognition was finally there. recognition by a larger audience.
after the 2000s, things changed even more. by the breakcore, the techno, the experimental hardcore crowed, pcp was no longer seen as "childish" finally anymore (yes, there was a time when you were ridiculed by self-appointed elitists, when you stated that you listened to pcp.)
pcp was rediscoverd again, its mysterios, excellent sound came into the open again.
and, a new generation of artists, of listeners, of human beings, discovered pcp newly again.
The Beginning Of Doomcore
the story, the beginning of doomcore is synonymous with one label. at the beginning, everything doomcore was PCP, and PCP was everything doomcore. they created the whole genre. they started it. listen to the labels at that time; you will see there is not much that actually sounds similiar to the things pcp pulled off back then.
sure, there were other tracks to be found; and you might find even further; "the aftermath" on the adrenalin records EP; or some of the sound of rome works, to name some. but, as i said, at first doomcore was virtually the same as PCP.
PCP set the sound with some of their best records; with the cold rush records. with the mover outings. with the cold metallic sound of mescalinum united. techno, at its beginning, was dark. but pcp put the darkness even further. they had the idea to create technotic, or pounding, 4/4 drums with lush, sweeping synth pads, rave signals, dark choir outings. in a time when everyone seemed to focus mostly on the grove and beat of techno, PCP shifted the focus to the emotion, the setting of a track.
so that was it. the doomcore formula had been found. the dark dancefloor came into existence. and from that, the sound evolved even more.
PCP's outings became more intricate as time moved on, too. the reduced sound of the first mover EP later gave way to the complex melodic systems and spacious sounds of some of miro's work (the purple moon, the xtc express...).
at this point of history, doomcore was more or less a rarity. there were dedicated doomcore fans and doom supporters, but they were few. the core group was members of the dutch-influenced gabber sounds, oldschool techno heads who had "grown up" (at least technowise) with pcp, and the experimental underground scenes of techno, in the web surrounding the c8 collective, which to a large part was composed of PCP fans (that scene later gave rises to scenes such as breakcore or frenchcore).
that there was only one real label (or rather, label family) for doomcore didn't help with the spread of doomcore, of course. this changed by the mid 90s. other labels dedicated to the doomcore sound came into being. the most important were the crossbones tree of label, and fifth era. smaller labels and projects arose too, such as black blood and his frontline of sound label (still highly underrated), and even more obscure labels.
skip to the present. the situation couldn't be better for doomcore. doomcore is on the rise, and finally getting recognition and appreciation by people outside the small doomcore circle too. now we have whole events dedicated to doomcore with several acts (an impossibility in the 90s), and the doomcore scene seems to grow.
while this also leads to the danger of a commercialisation of sound, i think it will be a long while till this happens, and we still have plenty of time to enjoy the new doomcore outings. especially interesting to me are the large number of producers who are now interested in the doomcore sound and make great creations, on the internet and elsewhere.
the times are good for doomcore. let's enjoy them.
sure, there were other tracks to be found; and you might find even further; "the aftermath" on the adrenalin records EP; or some of the sound of rome works, to name some. but, as i said, at first doomcore was virtually the same as PCP.
PCP set the sound with some of their best records; with the cold rush records. with the mover outings. with the cold metallic sound of mescalinum united. techno, at its beginning, was dark. but pcp put the darkness even further. they had the idea to create technotic, or pounding, 4/4 drums with lush, sweeping synth pads, rave signals, dark choir outings. in a time when everyone seemed to focus mostly on the grove and beat of techno, PCP shifted the focus to the emotion, the setting of a track.
so that was it. the doomcore formula had been found. the dark dancefloor came into existence. and from that, the sound evolved even more.
PCP's outings became more intricate as time moved on, too. the reduced sound of the first mover EP later gave way to the complex melodic systems and spacious sounds of some of miro's work (the purple moon, the xtc express...).
at this point of history, doomcore was more or less a rarity. there were dedicated doomcore fans and doom supporters, but they were few. the core group was members of the dutch-influenced gabber sounds, oldschool techno heads who had "grown up" (at least technowise) with pcp, and the experimental underground scenes of techno, in the web surrounding the c8 collective, which to a large part was composed of PCP fans (that scene later gave rises to scenes such as breakcore or frenchcore).
that there was only one real label (or rather, label family) for doomcore didn't help with the spread of doomcore, of course. this changed by the mid 90s. other labels dedicated to the doomcore sound came into being. the most important were the crossbones tree of label, and fifth era. smaller labels and projects arose too, such as black blood and his frontline of sound label (still highly underrated), and even more obscure labels.
skip to the present. the situation couldn't be better for doomcore. doomcore is on the rise, and finally getting recognition and appreciation by people outside the small doomcore circle too. now we have whole events dedicated to doomcore with several acts (an impossibility in the 90s), and the doomcore scene seems to grow.
while this also leads to the danger of a commercialisation of sound, i think it will be a long while till this happens, and we still have plenty of time to enjoy the new doomcore outings. especially interesting to me are the large number of producers who are now interested in the doomcore sound and make great creations, on the internet and elsewhere.
the times are good for doomcore. let's enjoy them.
The Poet's Dilemma
so many great artists found a bitter end in the centuries that have gone by. but not only artists; also other great minds, revolutionaries, that found the most tragic of ends.
by this, of course, i mean self-inflicted dilemmas - not those who were wiped out by society, but brought the tragic onto themselves.
why did this happen? one could say, that maybe the things that were lied on them dragged them down. the criticism, misunderstanding of society, and things like this. but i think this is only half correct. many artists started out in seemingly worse conditions; a hellhole of life as a child and in youth, born in desparate neighborhoods and situations. they managed to overcome this; how did they fail as a phoenix then?
i think there is another problem, a much deeper problem, that almost any great mind will encounter in his life, if he walks his path upright, and that virtually all will fail. they won't succeed in this test.
which is, that regardless of artist or revolutionary, at the beginning there is the urge of change - of changing the world, changing society or at least changing culture. toppling it. kicking it over. even an artist who doesn't challenge society at a young age, at least challenges culture.
this leads to the first rise, the first breakthrough. the poet fights society and culture, and this will lead to his success, for a number of reason.
so, after he has been discovered by society and is being adored, or start a revolutionary movement, things should seem more easier now. shouldn't it be a lighter task to go on from this?
but it isn't. after the first sucess, the poet or revolutionary, will find out, that society and culture are more solid that it first appeared. that they aren't easy to change. people keep their old ways. art continues to follow in the old ways. in fact, it seems they can't be changed at all. one cannot faze them. they are solid and they are standing. this is, most likely, not the truth. but it appears like this. and it appears almost impossible to thoroughly change then.
the artist is now in a dilemma, in misery worthy of a greek tragedy. he has to change, for change is whole air he is breathing; he couldn't exist without it. yet, he thinks, he cannot.
but there is a solution. if you cannot change the world, can't you at least change yourself? and this, is the very end. because the poet better flung himself into the deepest pit, into the deepest ocean, than to ever led this thought enter his head.
changing yourself seems to be easy. after all, you can't control the world, and can't control the people. but you can control yourself. and thus, change should be easily brought upon yourself.
so the artist will start to change himself, by changing his art. he started out as a revolutionary punk musician for example, or as an anarchist techno producer. now, he decided, he needs to "move on" from this childishness and make more "serious" music with more "mature" themes. or the revolutionary will think, the frontal attack on capitalim, or the status quo, is futile. so he thinks of more "deep", "philosophical" ways to achieve anything, which could be more on a seemingy cultural, intellectual level. the old is discarded, and change is sought.
this way, the poet thinks, he can reach what he wants to reach.
or, the poet is generally inducing a change on his own personality. the people are dumb, but can't you, yourself, further your intellect even more, get rid of your weaknesses, your personality flaws, shine above everyone else, as a phoenix?
the thing is. you can't. you never will. because, the only, the one and only thing, that can't change, and that will never change, at any possibility, is yourself. you could rather fling the whole universe into a fire with the tip of your finger, than to change yourself.
you will stay as you are, at any means. changing society and the world would be easier, than to change yourself.
if you are a subversive punkmusician, if you are a revolutionary shouting anarchist slogans, there is a reason for this. because this is what you are. this is yourself. you do it, because this is a need for you. it is your nature. so, you should take care not to move away from your nature.
the poets found a bad end, in their task to move away from theirselves and to change themselves, to a point that they could not reach.
so better, take care, be careful. stay as you are, for you are good as you are.
by this, of course, i mean self-inflicted dilemmas - not those who were wiped out by society, but brought the tragic onto themselves.
why did this happen? one could say, that maybe the things that were lied on them dragged them down. the criticism, misunderstanding of society, and things like this. but i think this is only half correct. many artists started out in seemingly worse conditions; a hellhole of life as a child and in youth, born in desparate neighborhoods and situations. they managed to overcome this; how did they fail as a phoenix then?
i think there is another problem, a much deeper problem, that almost any great mind will encounter in his life, if he walks his path upright, and that virtually all will fail. they won't succeed in this test.
which is, that regardless of artist or revolutionary, at the beginning there is the urge of change - of changing the world, changing society or at least changing culture. toppling it. kicking it over. even an artist who doesn't challenge society at a young age, at least challenges culture.
this leads to the first rise, the first breakthrough. the poet fights society and culture, and this will lead to his success, for a number of reason.
so, after he has been discovered by society and is being adored, or start a revolutionary movement, things should seem more easier now. shouldn't it be a lighter task to go on from this?
but it isn't. after the first sucess, the poet or revolutionary, will find out, that society and culture are more solid that it first appeared. that they aren't easy to change. people keep their old ways. art continues to follow in the old ways. in fact, it seems they can't be changed at all. one cannot faze them. they are solid and they are standing. this is, most likely, not the truth. but it appears like this. and it appears almost impossible to thoroughly change then.
the artist is now in a dilemma, in misery worthy of a greek tragedy. he has to change, for change is whole air he is breathing; he couldn't exist without it. yet, he thinks, he cannot.
but there is a solution. if you cannot change the world, can't you at least change yourself? and this, is the very end. because the poet better flung himself into the deepest pit, into the deepest ocean, than to ever led this thought enter his head.
changing yourself seems to be easy. after all, you can't control the world, and can't control the people. but you can control yourself. and thus, change should be easily brought upon yourself.
so the artist will start to change himself, by changing his art. he started out as a revolutionary punk musician for example, or as an anarchist techno producer. now, he decided, he needs to "move on" from this childishness and make more "serious" music with more "mature" themes. or the revolutionary will think, the frontal attack on capitalim, or the status quo, is futile. so he thinks of more "deep", "philosophical" ways to achieve anything, which could be more on a seemingy cultural, intellectual level. the old is discarded, and change is sought.
this way, the poet thinks, he can reach what he wants to reach.
or, the poet is generally inducing a change on his own personality. the people are dumb, but can't you, yourself, further your intellect even more, get rid of your weaknesses, your personality flaws, shine above everyone else, as a phoenix?
the thing is. you can't. you never will. because, the only, the one and only thing, that can't change, and that will never change, at any possibility, is yourself. you could rather fling the whole universe into a fire with the tip of your finger, than to change yourself.
you will stay as you are, at any means. changing society and the world would be easier, than to change yourself.
if you are a subversive punkmusician, if you are a revolutionary shouting anarchist slogans, there is a reason for this. because this is what you are. this is yourself. you do it, because this is a need for you. it is your nature. so, you should take care not to move away from your nature.
the poets found a bad end, in their task to move away from theirselves and to change themselves, to a point that they could not reach.
so better, take care, be careful. stay as you are, for you are good as you are.
Sonic Threads
it is interesting to note there is seemingly a sonic thread, in terms of content, message, philosophy in the music of the last decades; and this thread even continues along the seemingly rifts in music; the breaks between declining and new genres, and creates a bit of a whole connection.
60s rock, hippie, countercultural revolt grew stale in the 70s; i think this also shows in their music, and i think "the wall" by pink floyd is a good example of this. it paints a complete bleak, depressing hopeless picture. take a look of the lyrics of its song, "Another Brick In The Wall Part 3"
I don't need no arms around me
And I dont need no drugs to calm me.
I have seen the writing on the wall.
Don't think I need anything at all.
No! Don't think I'll need anything at all.
All in all it was all just bricks in the wall.
All in all you were all just bricks in the wall.
the ending point. all is hopeless. how to go on from this? this was the ending of the first rock period that originated in the 60s. yet, something new was beginning. the punk explosion. and, lyricwise, and in their philosophy, they actually went on from this. okay, so everything is shit. everything is hopeless. but hey, let's have fun with that. we got decay? give us more decay. gives us anarchy, nihilism. "there is no future on in englands dreaming". so get on the floor and get wild to the guitars.
so, even though punk wanted to be a total break from 60s and 70s rock, which they saw as "hippie" music, in content, they went on from it (and transcended it). this was likely not a conciousness decision - but it is interesting, to find indications for this thing.
a second example is the acid house and techno explosion, which came at a point when "indie" and genres as shoegaze dominated the subcultures.
punk had given way to postpunk, new wave and indie bands. while they had their cheerful moments too, they were also in most cases considerably bleak in their lyrical and sonic content.
yet, at the end (but also from the beginning), in their content, they reached a strange form of transcendence. okay, everything is bleak, everything is hopeless. but if you realise this, if you give in, if you see that all is in vain, you reach some point of exalted feeling of freedom. give up the world and the world won't faze you anymore. yes, it all was in vain, but it doesnt matter. it doesn't reach you.
this not only was the end of postpunk, or a certain grey worldview; it was also the farthest deconstruction of the modern worldview in general, with its ideas, morals and values, that had lost its meaning for its youth and discontent.
now, the interesting thing, is that techno and rave exactly pick up at that point, in their mindset and spectrum of ideas. postpunk led to the point that all in the world was meaningless. so rave tried to create something that was outside the common and of meaning again. techno in its ideology, at the beginning at least, was very unwordly. go into ecstasy, into trance, "higher states of consciousness", into introspection and bliss. also, the issues of everyday experience were negated to an extreme point: we don't care about the political systems anymore, about cold wars, nuclear arms, all the bleak and disappointing issues in this world: let's dance, have fun, enjoy your life, relax and be happy.
so, techno originated from the meaningless, and set out to create meaning again. inevitably, the ecstasy and exaltation of rave grew stale about a decade later too, again. but it is interesting to see this ongoing sonic thread; and it is to wonder, what will be the next developement, the next movement?
60s rock, hippie, countercultural revolt grew stale in the 70s; i think this also shows in their music, and i think "the wall" by pink floyd is a good example of this. it paints a complete bleak, depressing hopeless picture. take a look of the lyrics of its song, "Another Brick In The Wall Part 3"
I don't need no arms around me
And I dont need no drugs to calm me.
I have seen the writing on the wall.
Don't think I need anything at all.
No! Don't think I'll need anything at all.
All in all it was all just bricks in the wall.
All in all you were all just bricks in the wall.
the ending point. all is hopeless. how to go on from this? this was the ending of the first rock period that originated in the 60s. yet, something new was beginning. the punk explosion. and, lyricwise, and in their philosophy, they actually went on from this. okay, so everything is shit. everything is hopeless. but hey, let's have fun with that. we got decay? give us more decay. gives us anarchy, nihilism. "there is no future on in englands dreaming". so get on the floor and get wild to the guitars.
so, even though punk wanted to be a total break from 60s and 70s rock, which they saw as "hippie" music, in content, they went on from it (and transcended it). this was likely not a conciousness decision - but it is interesting, to find indications for this thing.
a second example is the acid house and techno explosion, which came at a point when "indie" and genres as shoegaze dominated the subcultures.
punk had given way to postpunk, new wave and indie bands. while they had their cheerful moments too, they were also in most cases considerably bleak in their lyrical and sonic content.
yet, at the end (but also from the beginning), in their content, they reached a strange form of transcendence. okay, everything is bleak, everything is hopeless. but if you realise this, if you give in, if you see that all is in vain, you reach some point of exalted feeling of freedom. give up the world and the world won't faze you anymore. yes, it all was in vain, but it doesnt matter. it doesn't reach you.
this not only was the end of postpunk, or a certain grey worldview; it was also the farthest deconstruction of the modern worldview in general, with its ideas, morals and values, that had lost its meaning for its youth and discontent.
now, the interesting thing, is that techno and rave exactly pick up at that point, in their mindset and spectrum of ideas. postpunk led to the point that all in the world was meaningless. so rave tried to create something that was outside the common and of meaning again. techno in its ideology, at the beginning at least, was very unwordly. go into ecstasy, into trance, "higher states of consciousness", into introspection and bliss. also, the issues of everyday experience were negated to an extreme point: we don't care about the political systems anymore, about cold wars, nuclear arms, all the bleak and disappointing issues in this world: let's dance, have fun, enjoy your life, relax and be happy.
so, techno originated from the meaningless, and set out to create meaning again. inevitably, the ecstasy and exaltation of rave grew stale about a decade later too, again. but it is interesting to see this ongoing sonic thread; and it is to wonder, what will be the next developement, the next movement?
Music Is Dead - Long Live Music!
for the last years, i've becoming more and more interested in a certain kind of music. sometimes, it's the only thing that interests me in music. i am not alone in my preference; i guess a million people discovered this special form of music, and enjoy it and crave to hear more. the problem is, this form of music has no name.
and, even its most dedicated listeners, might not even know that this kind of music does exist at all.
what am i talking about?
well, in western music, especially in the 20th century, there has always been the attempt to break out of the framework of music. especially in academic and avantgarde music. it has reached a point where it's not easy to go on from; we have had music of pure noise, random sounds, or silence - how more extreme can you get? how more rules can you bend? how can you progress from that, and create something wholly new?
it is easy. just abandon music altogether. but still make music. for music is dead - but long live music!
what do i mean with that? let me tell you the history of how i discovered this "kind of music". it arose out of chat sessions i had with some of my friends; it was, for us, the days of hardcore techno; but we had grown intensively bored with this genre. so we send ourselves suggestions for other kinds of music, bands, songs, that one should listen to. this was from all other the map; rock, ballads, 60s, 90s, classic, all mixed up. what i noticed after a while, was, that style was not so important at all. in each genre, there were songs that were special and stood out. but it was not easy to say what was special or different. take 60s music for example; some songs of it shine bright, and are different from the efforts of their contemporary bands. yet, the use the same set up of instruments, singing style etc. where is the difference?
it took me a while to realise what was going on.
they simply had a quality, that was not just in the set up of instruments, in the melodic key they used, i.e. in none of the musical and sonic categories. their brilliance was above the music, and its framework.
there was just something that stood out, was different, which could not be explained in musical or sonic terms or qualities.
this doesn't mean, of course, that there was something else, that was not music, to their songs; the instruments, singing, melody, transported this brilliance; but it also transcended it.
there is a quality of music that can not be explained by rhythms, chords, lyrics, pace, keys, harmonies, song structure and so on. it transcends music. it is something different to the very structure of a song or piece of music.
it expresses something, but it does so in its own way, in a special way.
say, you have the traditional setup: guitar, bass, drums etc. you could use them to create songs that are similiar to other music in that style; or you could create special songs, which transcend this setting; which are unique, and can not be attributed to the use, or the way, structure, form it is used, of these instruments. it is something of its own, which is outside the structure, outside the form, outside the instruments.
there can be something else to music, which can not be easily explained. some songs, some artists, just 'have' it, and others don't. in musical terms, it could not be written down what this is - but it is there, and people recognize it, as many agree on certain songs, which have this specialness, this quality.
let us look at it another way to show this:
a musician has a certain idea for a song. now, with this theory on mind, the musical framework or sound is not important. he wants to write a deep, philosophical song. he could use rock for this. or techno. or folk. or a classical setting. he could write a bassline, drum and percussion only 'dance' song or an acoustic guiter folk song. yet, his message would still be the same. the point of his music would be the same, regardless of the method. because the method, the structure of music have been overcome. it is not in the music and the structure anymore. it is outside of it.
this is a break from the past, where certain attributes, qualites, intentions were attributed to genres such as rock, pop, dance. etc
for music is dead - and long live music!
this, then, brings us back to the beginning. what is the next step? the next avantgarde? how more radical can you get? it is easy - deny music altogether. deny anything that is associated with music - yet still do music. just completely ignore the framework. make a folk song, make a dance song, an experimental or 'avantgarde' song - but use it to express something that is not in the music itself. that is not in dance or avantgarde. leave music behind, use it as a tool for a message - and still use music to transport it.
again, it should be said that, in the end, there is not something else in the songs than its structure and elements - there is bass and guitar and synth and percussion, and anything else, but not something without it. yet, how they are used, in these special songs, they transcend this. they create something which cannot be explained in the forms of their use.
lately, i've come back to the idea, that the musical framework should not be totally discarded, after all. maybe there are qualites in certain rhythms, sounds, that are important too, and have an important quality, and content of their own too. yet, the i think the general idea of this still holds true.
music is dead - long live music!
and, even its most dedicated listeners, might not even know that this kind of music does exist at all.
what am i talking about?
well, in western music, especially in the 20th century, there has always been the attempt to break out of the framework of music. especially in academic and avantgarde music. it has reached a point where it's not easy to go on from; we have had music of pure noise, random sounds, or silence - how more extreme can you get? how more rules can you bend? how can you progress from that, and create something wholly new?
it is easy. just abandon music altogether. but still make music. for music is dead - but long live music!
what do i mean with that? let me tell you the history of how i discovered this "kind of music". it arose out of chat sessions i had with some of my friends; it was, for us, the days of hardcore techno; but we had grown intensively bored with this genre. so we send ourselves suggestions for other kinds of music, bands, songs, that one should listen to. this was from all other the map; rock, ballads, 60s, 90s, classic, all mixed up. what i noticed after a while, was, that style was not so important at all. in each genre, there were songs that were special and stood out. but it was not easy to say what was special or different. take 60s music for example; some songs of it shine bright, and are different from the efforts of their contemporary bands. yet, the use the same set up of instruments, singing style etc. where is the difference?
it took me a while to realise what was going on.
they simply had a quality, that was not just in the set up of instruments, in the melodic key they used, i.e. in none of the musical and sonic categories. their brilliance was above the music, and its framework.
there was just something that stood out, was different, which could not be explained in musical or sonic terms or qualities.
this doesn't mean, of course, that there was something else, that was not music, to their songs; the instruments, singing, melody, transported this brilliance; but it also transcended it.
there is a quality of music that can not be explained by rhythms, chords, lyrics, pace, keys, harmonies, song structure and so on. it transcends music. it is something different to the very structure of a song or piece of music.
it expresses something, but it does so in its own way, in a special way.
say, you have the traditional setup: guitar, bass, drums etc. you could use them to create songs that are similiar to other music in that style; or you could create special songs, which transcend this setting; which are unique, and can not be attributed to the use, or the way, structure, form it is used, of these instruments. it is something of its own, which is outside the structure, outside the form, outside the instruments.
there can be something else to music, which can not be easily explained. some songs, some artists, just 'have' it, and others don't. in musical terms, it could not be written down what this is - but it is there, and people recognize it, as many agree on certain songs, which have this specialness, this quality.
let us look at it another way to show this:
a musician has a certain idea for a song. now, with this theory on mind, the musical framework or sound is not important. he wants to write a deep, philosophical song. he could use rock for this. or techno. or folk. or a classical setting. he could write a bassline, drum and percussion only 'dance' song or an acoustic guiter folk song. yet, his message would still be the same. the point of his music would be the same, regardless of the method. because the method, the structure of music have been overcome. it is not in the music and the structure anymore. it is outside of it.
this is a break from the past, where certain attributes, qualites, intentions were attributed to genres such as rock, pop, dance. etc
for music is dead - and long live music!
this, then, brings us back to the beginning. what is the next step? the next avantgarde? how more radical can you get? it is easy - deny music altogether. deny anything that is associated with music - yet still do music. just completely ignore the framework. make a folk song, make a dance song, an experimental or 'avantgarde' song - but use it to express something that is not in the music itself. that is not in dance or avantgarde. leave music behind, use it as a tool for a message - and still use music to transport it.
again, it should be said that, in the end, there is not something else in the songs than its structure and elements - there is bass and guitar and synth and percussion, and anything else, but not something without it. yet, how they are used, in these special songs, they transcend this. they create something which cannot be explained in the forms of their use.
lately, i've come back to the idea, that the musical framework should not be totally discarded, after all. maybe there are qualites in certain rhythms, sounds, that are important too, and have an important quality, and content of their own too. yet, the i think the general idea of this still holds true.
music is dead - long live music!
The 70s 80s 90s Continuum - Music
i think there can be a kind of connection - maybe meta-connection - drawn, from the underground and widespread music of the 70s, 80s and 90s.
i think each decade can be drawn to a kind of focal point in music, in expression and intention, or maybe effect.
the decades are not clearly drawn; (in this text) 70s will refer to the music of mid to late 60s to late 70s, 80s from late 70s to late 80s, and 90s from late 80s to mid 90s. as you can see, i'm more about the sonic epochs than the actual decades and years.
i think, the best, and most refined productions of these epochs, generate a certain ecstasy, a feeling of ecstasy, an acting of ecstasy, under the right circumstances, in the listener. and these are very equal to each other, but also quite different, depending of the point of view.
70s music is about the ecstasy of the mind. the krautrock and progrock, psychedelic experiments of that era, made people zone out, trip out, go off in their minds. it's about stimulating the mind, the intellect. with it's complex rhythms, production. the lyrical themes that deal in deep mysteries and pondering. music that is food for your mind - or, as the doormouse said, "feed your head".
90s music is about the ecstasy of the body. dance, dance, dance, while the record spins. techno, rave, hardcore, acid, dance music in general, breakbeat, jungle, breakcore, gabber. made your feet move fasts, your body twirl and shock, until you again zone out, but this time because of the frantic dancing, which is remniscent of tribal dancing, which, in those times were used to reach a state of ecstasy too. your body gets ecstatic, and your start to shiver, and shake, and drift off into a natural high.
80s music seemingly lacks the ecstatic focus of this sonic continuum. yet i think a method of ecstasy can be found here, too. the ecstasy of the heart.
the lush, melancholic sounds that drown you into their emotions, when sorrow and happiness join at the horizon of the emotional set. postpunk, punk, gothic, new wave. with its repetive rhythms and overdose of reverbation while creating synthesized waves of sound, it too makes you trip away, get lost in the sound, reach a pleasurable high.
the repitive vocals with an overdose of delay at the end of some new wave or postpunk songs at that era echo this effect.
this is far from being too exact, or sharply defined. of course 70s music had it's moments of body movements too (actually quite a lot), techno also feeds the mind, and postpunk is intelligent and 'dancable' too. this text doesn't aim to tell something too in a too clearly defined way.
yet it is interesting, to assume these focal points are there, and to explore these connections, and similarities of music, in those different epochs, and in their own epoch.
and, of course, it is due, to go into ecstasy oneself - again.
i think each decade can be drawn to a kind of focal point in music, in expression and intention, or maybe effect.
the decades are not clearly drawn; (in this text) 70s will refer to the music of mid to late 60s to late 70s, 80s from late 70s to late 80s, and 90s from late 80s to mid 90s. as you can see, i'm more about the sonic epochs than the actual decades and years.
i think, the best, and most refined productions of these epochs, generate a certain ecstasy, a feeling of ecstasy, an acting of ecstasy, under the right circumstances, in the listener. and these are very equal to each other, but also quite different, depending of the point of view.
70s music is about the ecstasy of the mind. the krautrock and progrock, psychedelic experiments of that era, made people zone out, trip out, go off in their minds. it's about stimulating the mind, the intellect. with it's complex rhythms, production. the lyrical themes that deal in deep mysteries and pondering. music that is food for your mind - or, as the doormouse said, "feed your head".
90s music is about the ecstasy of the body. dance, dance, dance, while the record spins. techno, rave, hardcore, acid, dance music in general, breakbeat, jungle, breakcore, gabber. made your feet move fasts, your body twirl and shock, until you again zone out, but this time because of the frantic dancing, which is remniscent of tribal dancing, which, in those times were used to reach a state of ecstasy too. your body gets ecstatic, and your start to shiver, and shake, and drift off into a natural high.
80s music seemingly lacks the ecstatic focus of this sonic continuum. yet i think a method of ecstasy can be found here, too. the ecstasy of the heart.
the lush, melancholic sounds that drown you into their emotions, when sorrow and happiness join at the horizon of the emotional set. postpunk, punk, gothic, new wave. with its repetive rhythms and overdose of reverbation while creating synthesized waves of sound, it too makes you trip away, get lost in the sound, reach a pleasurable high.
the repitive vocals with an overdose of delay at the end of some new wave or postpunk songs at that era echo this effect.
this is far from being too exact, or sharply defined. of course 70s music had it's moments of body movements too (actually quite a lot), techno also feeds the mind, and postpunk is intelligent and 'dancable' too. this text doesn't aim to tell something too in a too clearly defined way.
yet it is interesting, to assume these focal points are there, and to explore these connections, and similarities of music, in those different epochs, and in their own epoch.
and, of course, it is due, to go into ecstasy oneself - again.
On Symbolism: The Ancient Treasure Full Of Gold
the ancient, hidden treasure is a myth and symbolism found in many cultures, ancient and modern. western society seems to be very fond of it, as in highly succesful movies which are about this myth, such as the indiana jones series or tomb raider.
these modern interpretations reach back to this ancient myth; but it should be noted that even in the ancient societies, this was already a myth, which could have even older origins. at least it was not something ordinary; it was exalted, removed from the ordinary collection of myth and folklore. the varius nymphs, fairies, pixies, evil djinns were supposed to be around the people; and everyone had the risk to run into these, and find an ill or good fate. yet the hidden treasure was something that people were not believed to experience; only the most exalted of humans heros could possible reach it, maybe not even these.
it could also be, that these old myths were just a recollection of older myths, as modern pulp fiction is a recollection of these old myths.
so, what is it about this treasure? what sparks the interest in these stories, that manages to make people crave this fiction, or myths? even in todays society, in a very tangible way, we have insanely rich persons, that are above every one else in terms of wealth, which generate not as much attention, or imagination, as this symbolism. the prospect of gold and value alone seems not to be it.
the answer lies in what the ancient treasure symbolises.
the gold, the jewels, the silver, the crystals, the gems, the scepters and crowns, are just a symbol. the hidden treasure is a treasure of the mind, of the heart. what meant is not actual gold, but having a golden heart, a crystal clear mind.
to do good; to help others; to further mankind; to do all kinds of good deeds; to be of noble intention and of noble action. to spread joy, to follow happiness. these are the golden things. this is the buried treasure, that awaits to be uncovered. also, all qualites of the intellect; brilliance, wisdom, knowledge, enlightment. these are the true crystals, and the true wealth.
this is why the ancient treasure in myth is often located at an impossible location; that is almost non-reachable; since the treasure lies inside man, and can not be traveled to by ordinary means. the quests that have to be overcome are the quests and questions of life.
often in myths about the treasure, it is even plainly stated that one can only find it by having a noble heart, or having to fulfill quests that demand a noble heart or mind.
the mind is the true wealth of man.
the treasure is secret, because this a secret that has to be discovered.
in the movie "indiana jones and the last crusade", we have some examples for this. first, indiana jones only solves the quests as he is of pure heart and of a powerful mind. but most importantly, it should be noted that the treasure - the holy grail, in this case - is lost and the temple destroyed, in the moment it is tried to be moved from the exalted place it was kept to the world outside. wouldn't this be a nice proof, that this treasure couldn't possible exist in the outside world?
the treasure is out there - it is in yourself. it is your choice, to try to attain it.
these modern interpretations reach back to this ancient myth; but it should be noted that even in the ancient societies, this was already a myth, which could have even older origins. at least it was not something ordinary; it was exalted, removed from the ordinary collection of myth and folklore. the varius nymphs, fairies, pixies, evil djinns were supposed to be around the people; and everyone had the risk to run into these, and find an ill or good fate. yet the hidden treasure was something that people were not believed to experience; only the most exalted of humans heros could possible reach it, maybe not even these.
it could also be, that these old myths were just a recollection of older myths, as modern pulp fiction is a recollection of these old myths.
so, what is it about this treasure? what sparks the interest in these stories, that manages to make people crave this fiction, or myths? even in todays society, in a very tangible way, we have insanely rich persons, that are above every one else in terms of wealth, which generate not as much attention, or imagination, as this symbolism. the prospect of gold and value alone seems not to be it.
the answer lies in what the ancient treasure symbolises.
the gold, the jewels, the silver, the crystals, the gems, the scepters and crowns, are just a symbol. the hidden treasure is a treasure of the mind, of the heart. what meant is not actual gold, but having a golden heart, a crystal clear mind.
to do good; to help others; to further mankind; to do all kinds of good deeds; to be of noble intention and of noble action. to spread joy, to follow happiness. these are the golden things. this is the buried treasure, that awaits to be uncovered. also, all qualites of the intellect; brilliance, wisdom, knowledge, enlightment. these are the true crystals, and the true wealth.
this is why the ancient treasure in myth is often located at an impossible location; that is almost non-reachable; since the treasure lies inside man, and can not be traveled to by ordinary means. the quests that have to be overcome are the quests and questions of life.
often in myths about the treasure, it is even plainly stated that one can only find it by having a noble heart, or having to fulfill quests that demand a noble heart or mind.
the mind is the true wealth of man.
the treasure is secret, because this a secret that has to be discovered.
in the movie "indiana jones and the last crusade", we have some examples for this. first, indiana jones only solves the quests as he is of pure heart and of a powerful mind. but most importantly, it should be noted that the treasure - the holy grail, in this case - is lost and the temple destroyed, in the moment it is tried to be moved from the exalted place it was kept to the world outside. wouldn't this be a nice proof, that this treasure couldn't possible exist in the outside world?
the treasure is out there - it is in yourself. it is your choice, to try to attain it.
On Alejandro Jodorowsky
back in the days, there were no forums, webpages or videoblogs to stay up to date with the developement in the field of computers, or, even more important for the kid that i was, computergames. instead there were a dozen or so papermagazines available. usually one had only one magazine of choice that one bought. so every information on games, computers, technology, had to be crammed in there each month. the magazine i read decided to also put a new category up, about comics. the comics i known so far were mostly of the spirou&fantasio or tintin category. so i was amazed to read about a different kind of comics; comics orientated at a more mature audience, experimental and underground. one review was "class r detective" by alejandro jodorowsky. the review immediately enchanted me, so when i saw this particular comics at a store, i instantly checked it out.
if there was perfect timing in my life, it was when the works of jodorowsky hit my life. apparently, this comic, which was part of a series on the youth of the incal's protagonist john difool, was made with a teenage audience in mind. i just had entered the teen age, and this comic series was exactly the thing i needed at that moment. it had romance, sex, violence, thrill, true true love, drugs, social decay and general confusement, all fit into an overwhelming science fiction galaxy.
this was the start into the world of alejandro jodorowsky.
what can be said about his work, in general? maybe that it has a quality that is rare these days, which is that it is outstanding, in the true meaning of the world. there is not much that could be compared to his works. he combines philosophical pondering, deep questions of existance, with fast paced action and true romance stories. never have high culture and low culture be so close, or rather, be shown to be the same side of the same coin.
this hints at the overarching quality of his works: it's all about the deep questions, it raises deep thoughts, intensive speculation. some of the oldest questions of the philosophers have been hid in his comics, and sometimes even deeper thoughts. all covered up in seemingly pulp appeal, with its laser shooting mutant snails from a different planet, in a true jodorowsky style, and this is in my opinion his great skill: to combine these seemingly contradictionary things.
another one of his qualities is his apparently vivid fantasy. he creates his own universe full of awe-inducing, fantastic occurances, mysteries, wonders. his works overflows of ideas, of creativity, of imagination.
science fiction has been rocked by the cyberpunk revolution. but together with moebius, in my opinion, jodorowsky occupes a third section. it is neither the clean-cut authoritarian scifi of the past (as in: blonde boy rescues the universe, all done of course for the all powerful instituation of the future state), nor purely the dirt, decay and nihilism of cyberpunk. it has both of it, and is beyond it; the world of jodorowsky is one of chaos, danger and desease, but also of excellence, of beauty and high ideals; and the protaganist is usally hopelessly lost between both.
but there is another quality i should mention. his work is deep at more levels. the storylines often seem reduced: a romance, a love affair (amidst the chaos). but these things are written more touching, more emotional, more moving than in most fiction. it is hard to put in words - maybe i can do it in the future.
jodorowsky is on his own plateu, and from above this place, he sends us his imagination down to us.
the main body of jodorowsky are the adventures of john difool in various times, and the various spin-offs of this, such as the technofathers or the metabarons. but also the not that wide known works by him are worth checking out (in fact it is hard to get a cohensive list of his works). megalex. ogregod.
jodorowsky's work is out on the open, waiting to be discovered. if you are out for adventure, and don't mind your imagination reaching an overflow due to his ideas, go for it.
if there was perfect timing in my life, it was when the works of jodorowsky hit my life. apparently, this comic, which was part of a series on the youth of the incal's protagonist john difool, was made with a teenage audience in mind. i just had entered the teen age, and this comic series was exactly the thing i needed at that moment. it had romance, sex, violence, thrill, true true love, drugs, social decay and general confusement, all fit into an overwhelming science fiction galaxy.
this was the start into the world of alejandro jodorowsky.
what can be said about his work, in general? maybe that it has a quality that is rare these days, which is that it is outstanding, in the true meaning of the world. there is not much that could be compared to his works. he combines philosophical pondering, deep questions of existance, with fast paced action and true romance stories. never have high culture and low culture be so close, or rather, be shown to be the same side of the same coin.
this hints at the overarching quality of his works: it's all about the deep questions, it raises deep thoughts, intensive speculation. some of the oldest questions of the philosophers have been hid in his comics, and sometimes even deeper thoughts. all covered up in seemingly pulp appeal, with its laser shooting mutant snails from a different planet, in a true jodorowsky style, and this is in my opinion his great skill: to combine these seemingly contradictionary things.
another one of his qualities is his apparently vivid fantasy. he creates his own universe full of awe-inducing, fantastic occurances, mysteries, wonders. his works overflows of ideas, of creativity, of imagination.
science fiction has been rocked by the cyberpunk revolution. but together with moebius, in my opinion, jodorowsky occupes a third section. it is neither the clean-cut authoritarian scifi of the past (as in: blonde boy rescues the universe, all done of course for the all powerful instituation of the future state), nor purely the dirt, decay and nihilism of cyberpunk. it has both of it, and is beyond it; the world of jodorowsky is one of chaos, danger and desease, but also of excellence, of beauty and high ideals; and the protaganist is usally hopelessly lost between both.
but there is another quality i should mention. his work is deep at more levels. the storylines often seem reduced: a romance, a love affair (amidst the chaos). but these things are written more touching, more emotional, more moving than in most fiction. it is hard to put in words - maybe i can do it in the future.
jodorowsky is on his own plateu, and from above this place, he sends us his imagination down to us.
the main body of jodorowsky are the adventures of john difool in various times, and the various spin-offs of this, such as the technofathers or the metabarons. but also the not that wide known works by him are worth checking out (in fact it is hard to get a cohensive list of his works). megalex. ogregod.
jodorowsky's work is out on the open, waiting to be discovered. if you are out for adventure, and don't mind your imagination reaching an overflow due to his ideas, go for it.
War Stirner Anarchist?
ich mache hier etwas, was ich eigentlich in einem anderen text abgelehnt habe; etwas über stirner zu schreiben, was er nicht *direkt*, wörtlich in seinem text geschrieben hat (ich habe aber meinen grund für diesen "bruch" in meinen eigenen aussagen).
die frage, ob stirner anarchist ist.
er selbst reiht sich nicht schriftlich in die reihe der anarchisten, der befürworter der anarchie ein. dennoch, denke ich, gibt es dinge, denen man nachgehen kann. er benutzt häufig das wort "hierarchie" gegen die er sich wendet, die er abgeschafft sehen will. ein gegner jeglicher hierarchie ist doch - ein anarchist? das mag sich für eine spitzfindigkeit von wörtern anhören, und ist alleinig sicherlich nicht beweis genug. doch gibt es noch weitere indizien; gleich an mehreren stellen in stirners werk ruft er zu einer totalen revolution, zu einem totalen zusammenbruch des gesellschaftlichen system auf; die wege und ziele, auf die er sich dabei beruft, gleichen denen der revolutionären anarchisten auf verblüffende weise; einen zusammenschluss aller arbeiter, die sich den ausbeutern verweigern, notfalls mit allen mitteln.
das stirner staat, kapital, kirche, gesetze und das bürgertum radikalst kritisiert und "überflüssig" machen will geht aus seinem werk hervor, und damit - in gewisser weise - sich auch in die reihe der anarchistischen thesen einreiht, und braucht hier nicht noch einmal erwähnt zu werden.
eine ausführliche beweisführung der offeneren anarchistischen punkte in stirners werk soll hier vorerst ausbleiben, dies wäre vielleicht die aufgabe für ein anderes werk.
stattdessen soll die frage erörtert werden, ob man stirner wirklich anarchisten nennen kann, und wenn ja, wieso er dies dann unterlässt in seinem text offen zu erklären.
das problem, denke ich, liegt in dem anarchismus und der anarchistischen bewegung. stirner zitiert den anarchisten proudhon, aber seine kritik an ihm zeigt seine haltung zu der anarchistischen bewegung im allgemeinen. er ist sich der anarchistischen position bewusst, aber sieht ihre fehler. nämlich die, dass der anarchismus zu leicht auch wieder eine dogmatische "idee" werden kann, eine ideologie, die dadurch dann auch nicht besser wäre als der kapitalismus, der staatssozialismus und andere systeme. wenn der anarchismus nicht mehr den menschen, ihren freien ideen, ihrem willen, ihrer kreativität und der entfaltung ihrers innersten, ihrem selbst dient, sondern auch wieder ein programm ist, mit parolen, grundsätzen, die befolgt werden *müssen*, denen man nachlaufen muss wie ein parteisoldat, dann ist der anarchismus nichts wert. und während er in seiner theorie nicht unbedingt immer so war, ist der anarchismus in seiner praxis dies zu dem grössten teil geworden.
stirner hat dies begriffen, und war deswegen schlau genug, sich nicht in den anarchismus als ideologie einzureihen.
aber, wenn stirner nicht im herkömmlichen sinne anarchist war, was war er dann?
stirner war anarchist, in dem sinne, dass sein werk, seine thesen, würden die menschen sie befolgen, eine herschaftsfreie, gleichberechtigte gesellschaft schaffen würden, in denen sich die menschen nach ihrer natur ausleben könnten, ohne herscher und einschränkungen in dem sinne. dessen bin ich mir vollkommen sicher. er war nicht anarchist in dem sinne, dass er parolenschreien, das ausarbeiten von flugblätter und 'programmen' voller versteckter und offensichtlicher dogmen, dass in fixen ideen und vorurteilen denken der selbsternannten anarchisten befürwortet hätte.
stirners ideen würden zur anarchie. und wären seine ideen verbreitet, würden sie zum kampf für eine anarchistische gesellschaft führen.
stirner war ein radikaler, dessen alles bestehende umwerfende ideen, von umgemeiner wichtigkeit sind.
die frage, ob stirner anarchist ist.
er selbst reiht sich nicht schriftlich in die reihe der anarchisten, der befürworter der anarchie ein. dennoch, denke ich, gibt es dinge, denen man nachgehen kann. er benutzt häufig das wort "hierarchie" gegen die er sich wendet, die er abgeschafft sehen will. ein gegner jeglicher hierarchie ist doch - ein anarchist? das mag sich für eine spitzfindigkeit von wörtern anhören, und ist alleinig sicherlich nicht beweis genug. doch gibt es noch weitere indizien; gleich an mehreren stellen in stirners werk ruft er zu einer totalen revolution, zu einem totalen zusammenbruch des gesellschaftlichen system auf; die wege und ziele, auf die er sich dabei beruft, gleichen denen der revolutionären anarchisten auf verblüffende weise; einen zusammenschluss aller arbeiter, die sich den ausbeutern verweigern, notfalls mit allen mitteln.
das stirner staat, kapital, kirche, gesetze und das bürgertum radikalst kritisiert und "überflüssig" machen will geht aus seinem werk hervor, und damit - in gewisser weise - sich auch in die reihe der anarchistischen thesen einreiht, und braucht hier nicht noch einmal erwähnt zu werden.
eine ausführliche beweisführung der offeneren anarchistischen punkte in stirners werk soll hier vorerst ausbleiben, dies wäre vielleicht die aufgabe für ein anderes werk.
stattdessen soll die frage erörtert werden, ob man stirner wirklich anarchisten nennen kann, und wenn ja, wieso er dies dann unterlässt in seinem text offen zu erklären.
das problem, denke ich, liegt in dem anarchismus und der anarchistischen bewegung. stirner zitiert den anarchisten proudhon, aber seine kritik an ihm zeigt seine haltung zu der anarchistischen bewegung im allgemeinen. er ist sich der anarchistischen position bewusst, aber sieht ihre fehler. nämlich die, dass der anarchismus zu leicht auch wieder eine dogmatische "idee" werden kann, eine ideologie, die dadurch dann auch nicht besser wäre als der kapitalismus, der staatssozialismus und andere systeme. wenn der anarchismus nicht mehr den menschen, ihren freien ideen, ihrem willen, ihrer kreativität und der entfaltung ihrers innersten, ihrem selbst dient, sondern auch wieder ein programm ist, mit parolen, grundsätzen, die befolgt werden *müssen*, denen man nachlaufen muss wie ein parteisoldat, dann ist der anarchismus nichts wert. und während er in seiner theorie nicht unbedingt immer so war, ist der anarchismus in seiner praxis dies zu dem grössten teil geworden.
stirner hat dies begriffen, und war deswegen schlau genug, sich nicht in den anarchismus als ideologie einzureihen.
aber, wenn stirner nicht im herkömmlichen sinne anarchist war, was war er dann?
stirner war anarchist, in dem sinne, dass sein werk, seine thesen, würden die menschen sie befolgen, eine herschaftsfreie, gleichberechtigte gesellschaft schaffen würden, in denen sich die menschen nach ihrer natur ausleben könnten, ohne herscher und einschränkungen in dem sinne. dessen bin ich mir vollkommen sicher. er war nicht anarchist in dem sinne, dass er parolenschreien, das ausarbeiten von flugblätter und 'programmen' voller versteckter und offensichtlicher dogmen, dass in fixen ideen und vorurteilen denken der selbsternannten anarchisten befürwortet hätte.
stirners ideen würden zur anarchie. und wären seine ideen verbreitet, würden sie zum kampf für eine anarchistische gesellschaft führen.
stirner war ein radikaler, dessen alles bestehende umwerfende ideen, von umgemeiner wichtigkeit sind.
What Is Wrong With Society Today?
there is much criticism of society today; many people think the world is at its worst, of all times. yet on the other side, this is ridiculed, and said this was the way old people always thought that the times get worse, that everything gets more bleak each decade.
so, who is correct? did things are actually got worse - or is this just an illusion, a false feeling?
well, yes. there is a tangible thing, that got worse as time went on. that was worse in the 70s than it was in the 60s. that was worse in the 80s than it was in the 70s. that was worse in the 2000s than it was in the 90s. and i feel, that most of the problems of todays society, political, cultural, and otherwise, are connected with it, that it is the root of these others problems.
this is society's stance on all things intellectual; on the mind, logic, reason, knowledge.
this is what got worse; worse by each decade; anti-intellectualism in the west grew; and is by now a violent disease of society.
what value has the intellect, the mind anymore? generally?
in a social group, who will - most of the times - generate more interest, get more attention - the rich one with cars and luxury, or the one who spends his free time on attaining knowledge? the "bookworm" is often found at the lowest rank of a social setting - while the rich one, even if he has "a lack of brains" is at the highest. because anything intellectual is not valued anymore.
oh, it is valued - but as a tool. the one who uses his knowledge to gain lots of money is respected. but the one who longs for knowledge for knowledge's sake - who wants to use it to spread further knowledge - is not.
wisdom, intelligence, knowledge is not valued much anymore. not for itself. it is, the intellect is, even hated most of the times, tried be driven away, to be chased off.
we can see that in the field of politics. what is the main claim against equality of gender, sexual orientation, color of skin? that it's "intellectual". 'oh, in theory, your wishy-washy liberal ideas might work. but this is just intellectual hogwash. in the real world, it will not work'. what the reactionaries and conservativists say most of the time is basically - 'you people *think* too much. you overthink things. *normal* people know race, gender barriers are a solid part of society.'
this common reminder - not to "overthink" - as they call it - issues and just leave everything as it is, is one of the main barriers against social change.
also, look at the world of art. modern, experimental art is largely discredited now by many people. again, the claim is that the creators "overthink" things, are "too up in their heads", and a call for more simple, 'easy to swallow' art is made - for kitsch, and mainstream consumer boredom.
yes, intellectual art is still made - but the backlash against it in society is seemingly growing each day.
the movies, paintings, books, music that reaches the masses usually are at its most simplistic, uninspired now.
i could go on in other fields of life - but i think mentioning the social, the political and the cultural already covers a wide enough field - try to think of similiar things in other areas, and take a look, if there is not anti-intellectualism again behind the problem.
the intellectual, that of the mind, of knowledge and spirit is not valued anymore. this is the tendency of western civilization for a while now - maybe even for centuries.
related to this is also how values, morals, ideas are disregarded now - but which i don't mean "the old values" but values such as free society - for they are too more part of the intellectual, than of direct, plain existing things such as money or luxury.
what is to be done? this would be a different subject, that would take a long time to ponder on.
it is of course necessary that this developement is to be fought on any level, with any strength that is available; in ones immediatey social envioment, just as in society at large.
yet, apart from this, there is also a glimmer of hope. i have expectations that the pendulum might swing in the other direction again soon. in this decade, there is a tendency that the intellectual and rational is more valued. the strong interest in anything science again, by the media and people. the interest in books, philosophy, rational discourse. even the growth of "nerd culture" could maybe be related to this, as this is a way also a celebration of intellectal things as opposed to the tangible, direct.
so, times might get better again. very soon. yet, our fight is started, and the fight is on.
so, who is correct? did things are actually got worse - or is this just an illusion, a false feeling?
well, yes. there is a tangible thing, that got worse as time went on. that was worse in the 70s than it was in the 60s. that was worse in the 80s than it was in the 70s. that was worse in the 2000s than it was in the 90s. and i feel, that most of the problems of todays society, political, cultural, and otherwise, are connected with it, that it is the root of these others problems.
this is society's stance on all things intellectual; on the mind, logic, reason, knowledge.
this is what got worse; worse by each decade; anti-intellectualism in the west grew; and is by now a violent disease of society.
what value has the intellect, the mind anymore? generally?
in a social group, who will - most of the times - generate more interest, get more attention - the rich one with cars and luxury, or the one who spends his free time on attaining knowledge? the "bookworm" is often found at the lowest rank of a social setting - while the rich one, even if he has "a lack of brains" is at the highest. because anything intellectual is not valued anymore.
oh, it is valued - but as a tool. the one who uses his knowledge to gain lots of money is respected. but the one who longs for knowledge for knowledge's sake - who wants to use it to spread further knowledge - is not.
wisdom, intelligence, knowledge is not valued much anymore. not for itself. it is, the intellect is, even hated most of the times, tried be driven away, to be chased off.
we can see that in the field of politics. what is the main claim against equality of gender, sexual orientation, color of skin? that it's "intellectual". 'oh, in theory, your wishy-washy liberal ideas might work. but this is just intellectual hogwash. in the real world, it will not work'. what the reactionaries and conservativists say most of the time is basically - 'you people *think* too much. you overthink things. *normal* people know race, gender barriers are a solid part of society.'
this common reminder - not to "overthink" - as they call it - issues and just leave everything as it is, is one of the main barriers against social change.
also, look at the world of art. modern, experimental art is largely discredited now by many people. again, the claim is that the creators "overthink" things, are "too up in their heads", and a call for more simple, 'easy to swallow' art is made - for kitsch, and mainstream consumer boredom.
yes, intellectual art is still made - but the backlash against it in society is seemingly growing each day.
the movies, paintings, books, music that reaches the masses usually are at its most simplistic, uninspired now.
i could go on in other fields of life - but i think mentioning the social, the political and the cultural already covers a wide enough field - try to think of similiar things in other areas, and take a look, if there is not anti-intellectualism again behind the problem.
the intellectual, that of the mind, of knowledge and spirit is not valued anymore. this is the tendency of western civilization for a while now - maybe even for centuries.
related to this is also how values, morals, ideas are disregarded now - but which i don't mean "the old values" but values such as free society - for they are too more part of the intellectual, than of direct, plain existing things such as money or luxury.
what is to be done? this would be a different subject, that would take a long time to ponder on.
it is of course necessary that this developement is to be fought on any level, with any strength that is available; in ones immediatey social envioment, just as in society at large.
yet, apart from this, there is also a glimmer of hope. i have expectations that the pendulum might swing in the other direction again soon. in this decade, there is a tendency that the intellectual and rational is more valued. the strong interest in anything science again, by the media and people. the interest in books, philosophy, rational discourse. even the growth of "nerd culture" could maybe be related to this, as this is a way also a celebration of intellectal things as opposed to the tangible, direct.
so, times might get better again. very soon. yet, our fight is started, and the fight is on.
Invisible Knowledge
when a man or woman, by chance, or by reflection, or by skill, has the feeling he has knowledge that surpasses the normal, information he wants to share, or just a critique that he feels is necessary to be put out in the world, he has a variety of choices he can make. he can choose to go the "official way", join academia or get known another way, become one of societies respected scholars, authors, philosopheres. there are a lot of hindrances on this way. academia, as we know it, is, after all, the academia of society, of 'the system'. so if his ideas go against the status quo, his ideas run the risk of being quenched. this happened plenty of times in history. how many 'radical' professors are there at the universities, compared to the ones who defend or tolerate the status quo? but, even, if in the name of freedom of speech, an university does not try to flush out its radicals; as it was like in the university setting of the 60s; they still will not tolerate ideas that are such as radical, as they are criticisng academia itself. still, even if a university would exist, that is so tolerant and liberal, that it accepts ideas of any radicality; its professors simply cannot support those ideas, that are so radical and far ahead, that they do not understand it. if someone at a medival university gave a talk about computer technology, that is common now, he would have been laughed at and chased away. for even if a professor would be willing to support these ideas that are even ahead of him; if he can't comprehend them, how would he tell the different between a foolish design and a brilliant idea?
so, going for academia, going for the "offical way" when trying to move in the field of knowledge, of wisdom and philosophy, might not be the smartest idea.
another way to further, and to publish ones ideas, is the counterculture and the fringe. the counterculture itself is not much visible or existent anymore, yet it is still home of a few authors, so let's take a look at it. usually, the counterculture bares no limit on the radicality of an idea itself, so one enjoys there a thousand times more freedom than in the setting of academia - seemingly. yet there are still downsides to these. the "left" has its dogmas and fixed ideas too, and if you go against these, you will quickly reach your limits in the countercultural milieu. even the most radical anarchist groups usually have their few, "dumb", dogmas that they cant get rid of - a bane for every true freethinker. it would be nice to supply these claims with a few examples, but there is not much time for it. seemingly, a "career" on the fringe side of society has its drag too. as you might not be taking serious, or just not reach a lot of people, this way.
yet there is another way. we assumed, you would put out your ideas in the open. but you do not have too. you can spread them - invisible. as a poet, an artist, a philosopher you can spread your knowledge, your wisdom, in a secret way.
put them into metaphors; short stories; art; fiction; allegories; stories. this way, there is virtually no limit on your ideas and how you can spread them, if you do it right.
this is of course, what thousands of poets, musicians and artists have done throughout the ages.
no matter how strong the censorship of the king or the clergy was; they could not ban an allegoric painting, if they did not even understood the artists intention.
so, in peotry, art, music, and such, is a pool of knowledge, of truth, of ideas, to be found, that is hidden from the view of the masses. and this pool of knowledge, in many terms, surpasses the official knowledge, philosophies, theories, that are known to people.
so go ahead; if you thirst for wisdom; explore this deep, this other pool of knowledge. the deep ocean of wisdom in which the poet and the artist swim.
so, going for academia, going for the "offical way" when trying to move in the field of knowledge, of wisdom and philosophy, might not be the smartest idea.
another way to further, and to publish ones ideas, is the counterculture and the fringe. the counterculture itself is not much visible or existent anymore, yet it is still home of a few authors, so let's take a look at it. usually, the counterculture bares no limit on the radicality of an idea itself, so one enjoys there a thousand times more freedom than in the setting of academia - seemingly. yet there are still downsides to these. the "left" has its dogmas and fixed ideas too, and if you go against these, you will quickly reach your limits in the countercultural milieu. even the most radical anarchist groups usually have their few, "dumb", dogmas that they cant get rid of - a bane for every true freethinker. it would be nice to supply these claims with a few examples, but there is not much time for it. seemingly, a "career" on the fringe side of society has its drag too. as you might not be taking serious, or just not reach a lot of people, this way.
yet there is another way. we assumed, you would put out your ideas in the open. but you do not have too. you can spread them - invisible. as a poet, an artist, a philosopher you can spread your knowledge, your wisdom, in a secret way.
put them into metaphors; short stories; art; fiction; allegories; stories. this way, there is virtually no limit on your ideas and how you can spread them, if you do it right.
this is of course, what thousands of poets, musicians and artists have done throughout the ages.
no matter how strong the censorship of the king or the clergy was; they could not ban an allegoric painting, if they did not even understood the artists intention.
so, in peotry, art, music, and such, is a pool of knowledge, of truth, of ideas, to be found, that is hidden from the view of the masses. and this pool of knowledge, in many terms, surpasses the official knowledge, philosophies, theories, that are known to people.
so go ahead; if you thirst for wisdom; explore this deep, this other pool of knowledge. the deep ocean of wisdom in which the poet and the artist swim.
Revolution Or Interest
i have had it with mediocre art being defended; with claims that art shouldn't meddle in politics; that art should be seen on its own, not being associated with social issues; and not other issues either; i've had it with talentless artists praising their meaningless, bullshit art, abusing the rightful idea of "freedom of artistic expression" - yes artistic expression should not be quenched - but i retain my freedom to call your art boring if it is boring.
let's get rid of all that postmodern, substanceless art, that is completely generic, without goal, aim or purpose, all in the name of being "pure art", free from the seemingly drag of politics or cultural issues. yes, pure art might indeed exist or be viable - but your art isn't, it is not pure, it is dirt.
i propose the following: art should be revolutionary again. anarchistic. anticapitalistic. subversive. rebellious. against the status quo. for a free, just society. for ecstasy. or, if it is not, willingly - as i said, i value the freedom of the artist, he or she can of course be free of politics (although this might be a bit of a hard task, as everything is inherently political) - then at least have an interesting idea, concept, purpose with your art. something that is new, well-thought out, beautiful, groundbreaking, that was not there before. revolution or interest - that should be the claim. revolution or bust. if you don't want to be revolutionary in politics - at least be a revolutionary in mind. bring me something that stimulates my mind. that gives people new thoughts. but don't bore me with your generic art that has no purpose or substance, that wants to achieve nothing at all (there is indeed a way this could work - but this would have its place in another text), that sets not out to conquer gold, to reach out for the exciting.
be revolutionary. for a revolution of the mind. of society. but best - for both.
let's get rid of all that postmodern, substanceless art, that is completely generic, without goal, aim or purpose, all in the name of being "pure art", free from the seemingly drag of politics or cultural issues. yes, pure art might indeed exist or be viable - but your art isn't, it is not pure, it is dirt.
i propose the following: art should be revolutionary again. anarchistic. anticapitalistic. subversive. rebellious. against the status quo. for a free, just society. for ecstasy. or, if it is not, willingly - as i said, i value the freedom of the artist, he or she can of course be free of politics (although this might be a bit of a hard task, as everything is inherently political) - then at least have an interesting idea, concept, purpose with your art. something that is new, well-thought out, beautiful, groundbreaking, that was not there before. revolution or interest - that should be the claim. revolution or bust. if you don't want to be revolutionary in politics - at least be a revolutionary in mind. bring me something that stimulates my mind. that gives people new thoughts. but don't bore me with your generic art that has no purpose or substance, that wants to achieve nothing at all (there is indeed a way this could work - but this would have its place in another text), that sets not out to conquer gold, to reach out for the exciting.
be revolutionary. for a revolution of the mind. of society. but best - for both.
Anarchy and Extacy
the system, society, capitalist civilization, dulls our minds; our senses; our bodies. the everyday oppresion by police, surveillance, capitalist factories, are a thousand times surmounted by the oppression of our minds and thoughts. society leaves us with only a small pile of dust of joys and enthuasim still available for us; boring reality tv shows; shopping for overpriced shoes; all the small and large, but false, attraction of all kinds of luxury items.
there is so much more in life. there should be so much more. all these adventures that could happen. all these journeys one could begin. all these joys, excitement, satisfiction that is out there, that waits to be discovered.
the sweet, sweet tears of ecstasy.
there is so much joy and pure bliss one can experience in this life. i feel there is no limit on happiness. you can always surpass it. yet capitalism bores us with the "everyday life" we are locked in. yes, the institutions of the state have to be questioned. those of the capital. those of other forms of oppression. but we mustn't forget the other struggle too, the struggle for adventure, for the fantastic. we need to pave a way for ecstacy. for a true anarchy, an anarchy of the wondrous, of the brilliant.
there is so much more in life. there should be so much more. all these adventures that could happen. all these journeys one could begin. all these joys, excitement, satisfiction that is out there, that waits to be discovered.
the sweet, sweet tears of ecstasy.
there is so much joy and pure bliss one can experience in this life. i feel there is no limit on happiness. you can always surpass it. yet capitalism bores us with the "everyday life" we are locked in. yes, the institutions of the state have to be questioned. those of the capital. those of other forms of oppression. but we mustn't forget the other struggle too, the struggle for adventure, for the fantastic. we need to pave a way for ecstacy. for a true anarchy, an anarchy of the wondrous, of the brilliant.
My Crisis Of Creating Art
after i returned to creating music after an almost 4 year long break, i was overly enthuasistic. i had so many ideas that had piled up in the years that had passed, and started to produce tracks en masse. this soon faded to disappointment; i felt that my music had lost its sparkle, and also its purpose. it just didnt feel like it used to do.
the reason, or rather, one of the reasons, why i did music lies in some texts and books i read around a year after i had started creating music. it was a critique of art, or rather, a critique of everything. the major flaw, the major failure of art, as it was stated, was that the object, the purpose, the essence of art was removed from the people and from life; art was subjected to put into a gallery or pressed on a record; but no real connection was made. when listening to music or watching a painting, a sparkle was felt, but this sparkle passed. the job of the revolutionary artist, thus, was to catch this wondrous sparkle; extend it; so that a real connection was made; the sparkle had to become tangible.
in the 7 years of creating art initially, i tried all kinds of methods to achieve this; sometimes to a lesser degree, sometimes more. but never i felt as i had really suceeded. the art remained art. it remained removed.
so, in my crisis of art, this goal, seemed farther away than ever. then, by chance, i recalled, that i actually had attained this goal in my life; and, even more confusingly, at the very beginning of my life. when i was a small child, art had this wondrous quality to me, and it felt totally normal to me. listening to spacy music, when some of the scifi influenced music was played on the radio, really made me feel as i was surfing the stars or being put in orbit. music was magic at that time.
i realised that this was exactly what the authors i had read, about art, wanted to attain.
so i had it; i had had it, and i had lost it. but, at least i knew, that what i was trying to attain with art, was indeed a possibly. but, now, how to go on about it? the first step was to gather the music that had this effect on me at a young age, at the beginning of the 80s; electronic krautrock (yes there was a time when this was played on the radio), synthpop, experimental electronic music, even some synth-infused mainstream music.
i couldn't recreate this intense sparkle just by listening to it; but i felt that i was at least getting somewhere, at least finally moving ahead with my art. i felt i was coming closer.
this resulted in a lengthy and, at many times, exhausting journey. but, i managed, with my own music, for me, to at least have moments, where i felt this same thing, maybe not as intensive, maybe not as long, but it was there, again. so i was getting ahead.
how this journey will go on, and end, and if i will suceed, i can't tell - yet.
the reason, or rather, one of the reasons, why i did music lies in some texts and books i read around a year after i had started creating music. it was a critique of art, or rather, a critique of everything. the major flaw, the major failure of art, as it was stated, was that the object, the purpose, the essence of art was removed from the people and from life; art was subjected to put into a gallery or pressed on a record; but no real connection was made. when listening to music or watching a painting, a sparkle was felt, but this sparkle passed. the job of the revolutionary artist, thus, was to catch this wondrous sparkle; extend it; so that a real connection was made; the sparkle had to become tangible.
in the 7 years of creating art initially, i tried all kinds of methods to achieve this; sometimes to a lesser degree, sometimes more. but never i felt as i had really suceeded. the art remained art. it remained removed.
so, in my crisis of art, this goal, seemed farther away than ever. then, by chance, i recalled, that i actually had attained this goal in my life; and, even more confusingly, at the very beginning of my life. when i was a small child, art had this wondrous quality to me, and it felt totally normal to me. listening to spacy music, when some of the scifi influenced music was played on the radio, really made me feel as i was surfing the stars or being put in orbit. music was magic at that time.
i realised that this was exactly what the authors i had read, about art, wanted to attain.
so i had it; i had had it, and i had lost it. but, at least i knew, that what i was trying to attain with art, was indeed a possibly. but, now, how to go on about it? the first step was to gather the music that had this effect on me at a young age, at the beginning of the 80s; electronic krautrock (yes there was a time when this was played on the radio), synthpop, experimental electronic music, even some synth-infused mainstream music.
i couldn't recreate this intense sparkle just by listening to it; but i felt that i was at least getting somewhere, at least finally moving ahead with my art. i felt i was coming closer.
this resulted in a lengthy and, at many times, exhausting journey. but, i managed, with my own music, for me, to at least have moments, where i felt this same thing, maybe not as intensive, maybe not as long, but it was there, again. so i was getting ahead.
how this journey will go on, and end, and if i will suceed, i can't tell - yet.
The Story Of Fischkopf
fischkopf first caught my awareness when it was mentioned on the old DHR website ca. 1996 on the haywire tree of sites. they wrote, about DHR, labels with 'similiar' had sprung up in other cities as berlin, for example fischkopf in hamburg. it was not long ago that i discovered the hardcore / experimental world, and was completely in love in it, so i was pretty excited; a label from that scene, with that sound, here in hamburg, where i live? i immediately tried to find out more, and got to know fischkopf records operated from a store here in hamburg called container records, for records and CDs of all kinds techno; i think they had one of the largest sections for hardcore only in europe, at least this side of rotterdam. multipara's label discographies webpage - he had one area solely for fischkopf - provided me with further information.
but now, let's cut the introduction, and get to the basics.
fischkopf was started in 1994 by a group of people, including the operator of container records, martin, and people such as DJ Raid. the first release was done by cybermouse. in an interview it was stated, that cybermouse caught the interest of the fischkopf crew as he was known for his eclectic taste in music in the container record store. this resulted in fisch 1 - cybermouse - surprise attack. the tracks on this release were done on an amiga 500, and actually first released in a diskmag called neurowaver, before they found their way on this fine 12".
the follow up was christoph de babalon's "love under will" EP. these two releases already set the way of what was to come, with their exotic, experimental approach to music that was not easily found elsewhere.
after the fourth release, the old crew disbanded. DJ Raid and others set out to create their own label (with others), Cross Fade Entertainment. the first release on the, "methods of mutilation", by somatic responses, was actually the first somatic responses EP also. it had originally planned to be released on fischkopf. also planned, but scrapped, was a fischkopf release by alec empire.
gerhard storz, called hardy, now took over the business of running fischkopf. the first release under his hands was "shortage of oxygen" by eradicator aka patric catani, one of the masterminds of the experimental and digital hardcore scene back then. what followed were releases by monoloop and lasse steen under the name of p.server, which, with their spaced out jungle and hard acid madness, showed that fischkopf could not be pinned down to one style. in this early period of fischkopf falls also the first outing by one of the most celebrated persons in experimental hardcore: joerg buchholz aka taciturne. with this release, "potpourri" EP, he also had the track which is probably the only one known to gabberists by this label; "der toten". it became a sort of "rave anthem", played on many a gabber party, and is, according to my knowledge, the best selling record of this label.
it also sometimes fetches wondrous prices on the discogs page to sell records.
cue several other later releases, and we arrive at fisch 12, "6 fragmente in der chronologie des wahnsinns". named after an independent movie, "71 fragmente einer chronologie des zufalls", it features hard hitting sonic experiments that were unseen at that point in history. you can find a more lenghty and conclusive review of this record on my blog. let's just add, that is also known to fetch wondrous bids of money on discogs.
by now it should be noted, that at that point, fischkopf had become a sort of phenomen. the "normal" hardcore scene more or less chosed to ignore most of its releases. hardy, in an interview for signal zero said, that it was actually one of his intentions, to make music that was outside the hardcore scene at that point, what he called the pcp and nordcore crowd.
so, fischkopf was actually much less known as many of its contemporary labels which sometimes even managed to drop compilations with their stuff in supermarkets and mainstream stores (hey, it was the hardcore heyday back then).
yet, to a smaller group of people, fischkopf was already known as being the source for brilliant, exquisite hardcore creations and sonic experimentation. so fischkopf managed to pierced many a subculture with its sound.
it is only now, it seems, that fischkopf seems to finally get wider recognition (although slowly growing), by the possibilites of the internet - or is it fading into total obscurity? only time will tell.
let's get on.
fisch 14 saw the first and only album by eradicator. tonal assault between 4/4 madness and an industrial record collection can be found here. catani actually got annoyed by the label, as they used a self-made artwork for this, instead of his own cover design.
in this middle period of fischkopf - we are in 1996 - three more important names appear on fischkopf. nawoto suzuki aka burning lazy persons, and the michelsen sisters, no name and auto-psy.
lenghty reviews are due elsewhere - let's just say i consider these releases to be amongst the most important at this point of hard electronic music.
fisch 20 had amiga shock force, with an aptly named assault of "psycore kids vs rave fascists."
fisch 23 saw the master release of fischkopf. a compilation with its acts and related artists. everyone always was about the vinyl version; but, according to me, better get the 2xCD, as some of the best tracks are CD only.
again, not the time for a lenghty review, but it is the outing of some of the best artists at that date with some of their best tracks, and spans from breakcore to acidtechno, from all-out noisecore to the most calm ambient.
fisch 24 saw a release by EPC, whose items are the subject of a collectors hunt these days.
after that - it was the end. why and how fischkopf ended is not clear. did hardy fell out with the container records crew? or didn't fischkopf generate enough attention and a clear balance, in the end?
no matter what it was, the shock hit the fischkopf supporters hard.
we're in 1997 now. by the fourth quarter of 1998, a white label suddenly appeared, followed by a regular release.
fisch 25 by mathey olivers. excellent french hardcore with surreal ideas can be found here.
apparenly fischkopf was due to a relaunch? but just as it appeared again so fast, it faded away again - a shame.
the last outing was the white label of fisch 26, of which only a few test pressings seemingly existed. later, it was found out that it was done by cybermouse, who has also done fisch 1 - a nice and worthy ending for this great label.
this text only covers a fragment of information (or of "wahnsinn"?) about this underrated, appreciated, fantastic, groundbreaking label. much more is to be found out. it is up to you to find out more - or wait for more information to appear.
further information: http://www.discogs.com/label/4356-Fischkopf-Hamburg
but now, let's cut the introduction, and get to the basics.
fischkopf was started in 1994 by a group of people, including the operator of container records, martin, and people such as DJ Raid. the first release was done by cybermouse. in an interview it was stated, that cybermouse caught the interest of the fischkopf crew as he was known for his eclectic taste in music in the container record store. this resulted in fisch 1 - cybermouse - surprise attack. the tracks on this release were done on an amiga 500, and actually first released in a diskmag called neurowaver, before they found their way on this fine 12".
the follow up was christoph de babalon's "love under will" EP. these two releases already set the way of what was to come, with their exotic, experimental approach to music that was not easily found elsewhere.
after the fourth release, the old crew disbanded. DJ Raid and others set out to create their own label (with others), Cross Fade Entertainment. the first release on the, "methods of mutilation", by somatic responses, was actually the first somatic responses EP also. it had originally planned to be released on fischkopf. also planned, but scrapped, was a fischkopf release by alec empire.
gerhard storz, called hardy, now took over the business of running fischkopf. the first release under his hands was "shortage of oxygen" by eradicator aka patric catani, one of the masterminds of the experimental and digital hardcore scene back then. what followed were releases by monoloop and lasse steen under the name of p.server, which, with their spaced out jungle and hard acid madness, showed that fischkopf could not be pinned down to one style. in this early period of fischkopf falls also the first outing by one of the most celebrated persons in experimental hardcore: joerg buchholz aka taciturne. with this release, "potpourri" EP, he also had the track which is probably the only one known to gabberists by this label; "der toten". it became a sort of "rave anthem", played on many a gabber party, and is, according to my knowledge, the best selling record of this label.
it also sometimes fetches wondrous prices on the discogs page to sell records.
cue several other later releases, and we arrive at fisch 12, "6 fragmente in der chronologie des wahnsinns". named after an independent movie, "71 fragmente einer chronologie des zufalls", it features hard hitting sonic experiments that were unseen at that point in history. you can find a more lenghty and conclusive review of this record on my blog. let's just add, that is also known to fetch wondrous bids of money on discogs.
by now it should be noted, that at that point, fischkopf had become a sort of phenomen. the "normal" hardcore scene more or less chosed to ignore most of its releases. hardy, in an interview for signal zero said, that it was actually one of his intentions, to make music that was outside the hardcore scene at that point, what he called the pcp and nordcore crowd.
so, fischkopf was actually much less known as many of its contemporary labels which sometimes even managed to drop compilations with their stuff in supermarkets and mainstream stores (hey, it was the hardcore heyday back then).
yet, to a smaller group of people, fischkopf was already known as being the source for brilliant, exquisite hardcore creations and sonic experimentation. so fischkopf managed to pierced many a subculture with its sound.
it is only now, it seems, that fischkopf seems to finally get wider recognition (although slowly growing), by the possibilites of the internet - or is it fading into total obscurity? only time will tell.
let's get on.
fisch 14 saw the first and only album by eradicator. tonal assault between 4/4 madness and an industrial record collection can be found here. catani actually got annoyed by the label, as they used a self-made artwork for this, instead of his own cover design.
in this middle period of fischkopf - we are in 1996 - three more important names appear on fischkopf. nawoto suzuki aka burning lazy persons, and the michelsen sisters, no name and auto-psy.
lenghty reviews are due elsewhere - let's just say i consider these releases to be amongst the most important at this point of hard electronic music.
fisch 20 had amiga shock force, with an aptly named assault of "psycore kids vs rave fascists."
fisch 23 saw the master release of fischkopf. a compilation with its acts and related artists. everyone always was about the vinyl version; but, according to me, better get the 2xCD, as some of the best tracks are CD only.
again, not the time for a lenghty review, but it is the outing of some of the best artists at that date with some of their best tracks, and spans from breakcore to acidtechno, from all-out noisecore to the most calm ambient.
fisch 24 saw a release by EPC, whose items are the subject of a collectors hunt these days.
after that - it was the end. why and how fischkopf ended is not clear. did hardy fell out with the container records crew? or didn't fischkopf generate enough attention and a clear balance, in the end?
no matter what it was, the shock hit the fischkopf supporters hard.
we're in 1997 now. by the fourth quarter of 1998, a white label suddenly appeared, followed by a regular release.
fisch 25 by mathey olivers. excellent french hardcore with surreal ideas can be found here.
apparenly fischkopf was due to a relaunch? but just as it appeared again so fast, it faded away again - a shame.
the last outing was the white label of fisch 26, of which only a few test pressings seemingly existed. later, it was found out that it was done by cybermouse, who has also done fisch 1 - a nice and worthy ending for this great label.
this text only covers a fragment of information (or of "wahnsinn"?) about this underrated, appreciated, fantastic, groundbreaking label. much more is to be found out. it is up to you to find out more - or wait for more information to appear.
further information: http://www.discogs.com/label/4356-Fischkopf-Hamburg
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)