hi,
thought i'd wrote down some ideas about doomcore records.
1. doomcore records if for real doomcore. this is a time when doomcore is "being discovered", by hype and business labels, and is watered down and mixed with hardstyle and other crap. it's okay - to me in the moment, but it could be that it goes into total hype soon.
so, doomcore records is for the real doomcore, the underground, the true dark techno and hardcore. not done by hype labels or artists, but by real people with real motivations.
2. doomcore records will always stay a free label, with freely shared releases. nothing wrong in running a pay label - but this free label approach will make sure everyone can download the tunes and releases, and it is kept underground and is not subject to money issues or hype.
3. doomcore records is for true doomcoreheads. it's music for you, by you, with you. the artists are just doomcore fans like yourself (i hope ;-) . the label is for those who are really into the sound, who know what it's about, who are into this thing, who are involved, yet also for newcomers who just discovered. not for the big party crowd at some commercial rave, but for the home listener, just like you. not that we mind if it is indeed played to large crowd at some point ;-) but it's not the main goal.
4. doomcore records is for all types of doomcore. there are so many various forms of doomcore in the moment - some harder, some more experimental, some fast paced, some slowly and menacing, and doomcore records is for all of them. there will always be two focal points with doomcore records: the style that has been called "phuture rave"; dancefloor stompers that are yet dark and brooding. and the introspective, experimental doomtechno sounds, slow, but dangerous.
5. doomcore records is family. when i got into hardcore, i liked there was no "business" atmosphere around it. these labels released thousands of record yet you could hang with them, chill with them, laugh with them, there was no level difference or hierarchy. i want to have this spirit with doomcore records too. there is really no level difference between the fans, the arists, the label. you are all part of this, part of doomcore, and doomcore records just wants to play a humble part in it too. the listeners are just as important as the releases that get put out.
and, most importantly, it's about the fun!
so, stay true, support the doomcore, and party.
doomcore records over and out
written 28.06.2014
No Name And Mouse
No Name And Mouse
i have always been intrigued by the music of stella and poka michelsen. to me, it is some of the most complex,
complicated, intelligent music ever made. levels and levels of beats; noize; ambiance; abstraction; is built on
top of each other. they're so far away from the "dumb gabber" and "speedcore" most people think of when the word'hardcore' is mentioned. is this hardcore? is that even techno? it is more of art - real art, abstract, maybe it would belong more to gallery, a museum, than to a party were people dance - if museums wouldn't be so boring!
i can't find many artists that could compare to this. the sheer level of complexity is overwhelming. some of the best somatic responses productions could compare - in complexity and experimentation of sounds. or the most intricate construction of underground PCP via acardipane. yet, maybe it is not right to compare this music - as it plays in its own universe. frantic noise, shrill, alien screams - often driven home by a powerful bassdrum, and killer punctured beats and hits. for some reason, i never compared this so much with other music, but to other forms of art, movies, pictures. this would fit well to dystopian cyberpunk picture, an onslaught of screeching robots pacing through a destroyed, wrecked industrial wasteland.
there are so many things i am missing in most hardcore that are in michelsen's productions; changes of beats, tempo, complex trackstructures with many twists, beginnings, endings, turn-arounds. lengthy intros of weird noises, laughter, ambient drones. some michelsen records fetch high sums at collectors at this time, and rightfully so.
while many other of their contempary artists around their decades became quite "famous" by now, known also to the dreaded "gabber" and "breakcore" crowd, the michelsen sisters still seem to be kind of a secret hint, with a cult following. yet, they are already legends, in their regard, in their own way.
Low Entropy - Tribute To Mouse And No Name Mix
01. Auto-Psy - Oxyde
02. No Name - Black Dream
03. No Name - Koma
04. No Name - Help
05. No Name - Ydroid
06. Mouse - Halloween
07. Mouse - Organe
08. Mouse - Vlad
09. Mouse - Digne
10. Mouse - Métropole
11. Mouse - Shift
12. No Name - A
13. Auto-Psy - Go Out
14. Auto-Psy - Neutron
15. Mouse - Hemostase
16. Erase Head - Pussy Cat
17. Mouse - Faf
18. Erase Head - Dome
19. No Name - Kamasutra
20. Auto-Psy - Escape
21. No Name - Start End
i have always been intrigued by the music of stella and poka michelsen. to me, it is some of the most complex,
complicated, intelligent music ever made. levels and levels of beats; noize; ambiance; abstraction; is built on
top of each other. they're so far away from the "dumb gabber" and "speedcore" most people think of when the word'hardcore' is mentioned. is this hardcore? is that even techno? it is more of art - real art, abstract, maybe it would belong more to gallery, a museum, than to a party were people dance - if museums wouldn't be so boring!
i can't find many artists that could compare to this. the sheer level of complexity is overwhelming. some of the best somatic responses productions could compare - in complexity and experimentation of sounds. or the most intricate construction of underground PCP via acardipane. yet, maybe it is not right to compare this music - as it plays in its own universe. frantic noise, shrill, alien screams - often driven home by a powerful bassdrum, and killer punctured beats and hits. for some reason, i never compared this so much with other music, but to other forms of art, movies, pictures. this would fit well to dystopian cyberpunk picture, an onslaught of screeching robots pacing through a destroyed, wrecked industrial wasteland.
there are so many things i am missing in most hardcore that are in michelsen's productions; changes of beats, tempo, complex trackstructures with many twists, beginnings, endings, turn-arounds. lengthy intros of weird noises, laughter, ambient drones. some michelsen records fetch high sums at collectors at this time, and rightfully so.
while many other of their contempary artists around their decades became quite "famous" by now, known also to the dreaded "gabber" and "breakcore" crowd, the michelsen sisters still seem to be kind of a secret hint, with a cult following. yet, they are already legends, in their regard, in their own way.
Low Entropy - Tribute To Mouse And No Name Mix
01. Auto-Psy - Oxyde
02. No Name - Black Dream
03. No Name - Koma
04. No Name - Help
05. No Name - Ydroid
06. Mouse - Halloween
07. Mouse - Organe
08. Mouse - Vlad
09. Mouse - Digne
10. Mouse - Métropole
11. Mouse - Shift
12. No Name - A
13. Auto-Psy - Go Out
14. Auto-Psy - Neutron
15. Mouse - Hemostase
16. Erase Head - Pussy Cat
17. Mouse - Faf
18. Erase Head - Dome
19. No Name - Kamasutra
20. Auto-Psy - Escape
21. No Name - Start End
Filmtip: Flatland - The Film (In German Language)
verfilmung des mathematischen romans aus dem 19ten jahrhundert.
animationsfilm von 2007.
das quadrat "a quadrat" ist mit einer linie verheiratet und hat pentagone und ein hexagon als kind. sein bruder arbeitet für präsident kreis. das leben von a quadrat gerät ducheinander, als a kugel in sein leben tritt, und ihn von der existenz einer dritten dimension überzeugen will. a quadrat weigert sich erst dies zu glauben, sieht es aber dann doch ein, und vertritt die these dass es dann auch eine 4te, 5te, n-te dimension geben muss. dies will die kugel jedoch nicht einsehen.
sehr gut gemacht, flashige visuals und überhaupt sehr flashig. allerdings auch teilweise sehr langatmig, musste mich regelrecht zwingen die ganzen 90 minuten anzuschauen. teilweise sehr viel liebe zum detail und lustige ideen, der träge würfel carlton, die kreischigen frauen, die etwas exzentrische kugel. oder der könig der nullten dimension in seinem punktland mit seinem rastafari-dialekt. "ah da joy, da joy, da all in all, da one in one".
scheinbar gibt es aus dem gleichen jahr noch eine verfilmung von flatland, diesmal mit martin sheen. habs aber noch nicht gesehen.
so wie ich es verstehe wurde der ganze film mit einer handelsüblichen 3d software erzeugt und aufwendig "zu hause" vertont? interessant.
fazit: wir wollen eine fortsetzung!
Partials And Harmonics
it is my understanding that, in western theory, the belief is that those intervals and tunings sound best, that fit to the overtones that are in the sounds of the instruments used. this always seemed a bit nonsensical to me. a sine has no overtones yet is one of the most harmonic soundsources one can use, with the usual intervals. i read that in psychoaccoustic, a sine is perceived as having 1, 2 overtones. yet, sine's also great with complex intervals that don't run along the basic overtones.
also, most importantly, when doing music myself, i noted, that when a melody or harmonic structure sounds great, it also sounds great when you use a different waveform with completely different overtones. for example, a melody based on a (very harmonic) sawtooth-wavshape also sounds great with a waveform of completely complex overtones. if the "overtone harmony" theory would hold true, it must sound horrible if you exchange waveforms with those of completely different overtones.
in my album "crystalline derivates" i took the same track, the same melody, and used completey different wave sources for it - completely harmonic sines and saws, completely strange ones, even some that are not a based on a short looped sequence at all. listen to it for yourself, if you are interested. if you can appreciate the original track, i think all variations sound "correct" in their way, not one of them is detroyed by the use of complete different overtones.
http://lowentropy.bandcamp.com/album/crystalline-derivates
also, most importantly, when doing music myself, i noted, that when a melody or harmonic structure sounds great, it also sounds great when you use a different waveform with completely different overtones. for example, a melody based on a (very harmonic) sawtooth-wavshape also sounds great with a waveform of completely complex overtones. if the "overtone harmony" theory would hold true, it must sound horrible if you exchange waveforms with those of completely different overtones.
in my album "crystalline derivates" i took the same track, the same melody, and used completey different wave sources for it - completely harmonic sines and saws, completely strange ones, even some that are not a based on a short looped sequence at all. listen to it for yourself, if you are interested. if you can appreciate the original track, i think all variations sound "correct" in their way, not one of them is detroyed by the use of complete different overtones.
http://lowentropy.bandcamp.com/album/crystalline-derivates
On Anti-Sedative EP
in 1999, i already had sent out dozens of demo-tapes. emailed as much labels. but, so far, no one was interested in releasing a full EP by me. i had some tracks on compilations - biophilia allstars, irritant. but not a true release yet. so i walked in the otaku record store here in my city, hamburg. i had seen hardy, of fischkopf, working at the container record store before, so i know what he looked like. he ran blut records now, out of the otaku store. i bought a record, i think it was somatix on deadly systems, that just came in, and left. next week i came back with a demo-tape i had recorded for this purpose. i walked up to hardy and said "you are hardy?". he said "yes". i said "you're doing blut records right? i have a demo tape here for your label, with my music". he looked at me with a bit of bewilderment. i gave him the tape. "you are doing this music?" he asked, still a bit sceptical perhaps. i said "yes". a week later again, i came back. he said he had listened to the tape, and wanted to make a vinyl 12" with my music. it would be the last 12" of blut records.
why anti-sedative? i thought, and still do, that pop music serves as a sedative, a mental sedative, that keeps the masses dumb and numb and hinders them from uprising and toppling society and reaching utopia. and i thought hardcore techno was the opposite - that made people rebellios and aggressive, and question everything and be critical, makes them "wake up". this was the story behind the name.
the tracks:
a1 starting up
done this in late 1998. can't really say much about the track. it was the speedcore style i liked around that time. 380 bpm i think. the trick here is that i used a special "effect" on the bassdrum after a few second into the track, that gives it an extra punch, well at least i hope so. the rest is quite noisy. i tried to make the screetching sounds as abrasive for the ears as possible.
a2 flatline
this was actually the 3rd finished track i ever did, or so. i think i was 16 at the time i produced it. the name is nicked from neuromancer, where a "flatline" is mentioned as being the fate of cyberpunks who got killed on cyberspace - and have a flatline of the eeg. a dixie flatline character plays an important part in the book too, a human whose conciousness was transfered to a computer system.
the beginning sounds of the track have been described as weird alarm or rave sounds by others, but the intention is of course, to sound like the eeg going flatline. this effect is repeated in the track.
otherwise, i tried to fit as many noizy sounds into the track as possible. there is a bit of a thing which i called the french hardcore thing, which is a change in rhythm structure after 8 basehits, and then back again.
the track actually clocks both at single and double speed, which might not be so visible at first.
a3 disharmonic
one of my first experiments in just intonation and microtuning, after peter gebert of lux nigra intoduced me to that concept. the main melody is not in a western tuning. i had the idea to turn it into more of a techno-sequence in the middle of the track. the breakbeat was an old break i had, that i tried to make sound more metallic. there is a huge pause towards the end, which i added to use it in a live concept, to make people believe that the track has ended, (or the soundsystem broken down), only to be surprised by the onslaught of beats then.
b1 electrocution
hardy wanted "i am god". but by chance, i gave him the wrong track. electrocution instead. when we talked about it he said that this track fits good too, though, so we kept it. electrocution again is one of my earliest tracks. it was an attempt of me doing "hardcore electro", electro as in electrofunk. the thing was i didn't know much of electro at that point, so it sounded completely different. it is the only track, i think, of that period of my music, which uses a melody, even if only 2 different notes for a few seconds.
dj fishead described it as a weird perversion of new wave or so.
b2 sadstep
the moneymaker! well, not really. but it was the track that crept into sets of other people and bought me my first bigger piece of recognition.
i was mildly ridiculed by my friends, because i used a "two step" (or hardstep) rhythm in this track (the name was actually a nod to that), similiar to the amen, that was a definite "no-go" amongst more serious music listeners at that point. to think that decades later still use amen and two-step without batting an eye seems a bit ironic.
again i'm venturing out of standart western tuning here, as the orchestration is "tuned" way different.
b3 neuromancer remix
and again, one of my earlier tracks. this is a remix of knifehandchop's "neuromancer" track, whom i have known from the #gabber channel on IRC back then. i tried to destroy and cut up the tune as much as possible, and used a very cheap and trashy production on this one. the melody at most parts deliberately plays out of loop and rhytms and is sequenced in the wrong way.
again, this was a track lots of people enjoyed and brought me some praise.
the anti-sedative was received well, and i got some positive reviews for it. the initial pressing run was 500 records, which was not a small run for the experimental scene back then.
it was the record i got my first advance, and the first record contract for. i used the tracks of it a lot in my livesets in the later years.
okay, so that was it. maybe you are interested, and want to check out the sound of it.
http://www.discogs.com/Low-Entropy-Anti-Sedative-EP/release/81340
why anti-sedative? i thought, and still do, that pop music serves as a sedative, a mental sedative, that keeps the masses dumb and numb and hinders them from uprising and toppling society and reaching utopia. and i thought hardcore techno was the opposite - that made people rebellios and aggressive, and question everything and be critical, makes them "wake up". this was the story behind the name.
the tracks:
a1 starting up
done this in late 1998. can't really say much about the track. it was the speedcore style i liked around that time. 380 bpm i think. the trick here is that i used a special "effect" on the bassdrum after a few second into the track, that gives it an extra punch, well at least i hope so. the rest is quite noisy. i tried to make the screetching sounds as abrasive for the ears as possible.
a2 flatline
this was actually the 3rd finished track i ever did, or so. i think i was 16 at the time i produced it. the name is nicked from neuromancer, where a "flatline" is mentioned as being the fate of cyberpunks who got killed on cyberspace - and have a flatline of the eeg. a dixie flatline character plays an important part in the book too, a human whose conciousness was transfered to a computer system.
the beginning sounds of the track have been described as weird alarm or rave sounds by others, but the intention is of course, to sound like the eeg going flatline. this effect is repeated in the track.
otherwise, i tried to fit as many noizy sounds into the track as possible. there is a bit of a thing which i called the french hardcore thing, which is a change in rhythm structure after 8 basehits, and then back again.
the track actually clocks both at single and double speed, which might not be so visible at first.
a3 disharmonic
one of my first experiments in just intonation and microtuning, after peter gebert of lux nigra intoduced me to that concept. the main melody is not in a western tuning. i had the idea to turn it into more of a techno-sequence in the middle of the track. the breakbeat was an old break i had, that i tried to make sound more metallic. there is a huge pause towards the end, which i added to use it in a live concept, to make people believe that the track has ended, (or the soundsystem broken down), only to be surprised by the onslaught of beats then.
b1 electrocution
hardy wanted "i am god". but by chance, i gave him the wrong track. electrocution instead. when we talked about it he said that this track fits good too, though, so we kept it. electrocution again is one of my earliest tracks. it was an attempt of me doing "hardcore electro", electro as in electrofunk. the thing was i didn't know much of electro at that point, so it sounded completely different. it is the only track, i think, of that period of my music, which uses a melody, even if only 2 different notes for a few seconds.
dj fishead described it as a weird perversion of new wave or so.
b2 sadstep
the moneymaker! well, not really. but it was the track that crept into sets of other people and bought me my first bigger piece of recognition.
i was mildly ridiculed by my friends, because i used a "two step" (or hardstep) rhythm in this track (the name was actually a nod to that), similiar to the amen, that was a definite "no-go" amongst more serious music listeners at that point. to think that decades later still use amen and two-step without batting an eye seems a bit ironic.
again i'm venturing out of standart western tuning here, as the orchestration is "tuned" way different.
b3 neuromancer remix
and again, one of my earlier tracks. this is a remix of knifehandchop's "neuromancer" track, whom i have known from the #gabber channel on IRC back then. i tried to destroy and cut up the tune as much as possible, and used a very cheap and trashy production on this one. the melody at most parts deliberately plays out of loop and rhytms and is sequenced in the wrong way.
again, this was a track lots of people enjoyed and brought me some praise.
the anti-sedative was received well, and i got some positive reviews for it. the initial pressing run was 500 records, which was not a small run for the experimental scene back then.
it was the record i got my first advance, and the first record contract for. i used the tracks of it a lot in my livesets in the later years.
okay, so that was it. maybe you are interested, and want to check out the sound of it.
http://www.discogs.com/Low-Entropy-Anti-Sedative-EP/release/81340
Why Artists Fail
there is a common motion, that the work that an artist does at the beginning - sometimes even unreleased demos, jam sessions, bootlegs - is amongst his most genuis, and it's only a downfall from then. or, artists that created great music for years, suddenly start to suck, and their music is not much welcomed anymore by their core fan base. i have to say that this holds true. a lot of artists lose their spark, sooner or later.
how does it happen? well, i knew many artists, directly, and i've followed many artists, and, actually, it happened to me too. so i knew where the problem is.
artists are individualists. they have to be. they don't like to follow rules. they follow their mind, their own mind. you can see that at the beginning of most artists work, that there is a breaking of former rules, of breaking free, making things different to their contemporaries. they are hated for that at first; but then celebrated for that. for being different. for going their own way. for being themselves. this holds true in rock, in techno, in punk, in any music scene basically.
so, artists tried to break free. eventually they found their way. their own way, as i said. they are now liked for this, and they have a following for that. they often have a clear idea what they did not like in music of others, that was before. certain musical concepts they wanted to change, or new ones they wanted to create. doing music in different speed, rhythm, production. or in a bigger picture, different mood, thought, feel.
it is going fine and well. but then, at one point the following happens. a new conviction, a new thought enters the artists head. that he 'can't do' what he wants. that, he too, has to follow a rule. the rules.
he was celebrated for doing what he wants, not caring about the rest. but now he thinks he cannot do this.
there are various reasons for that. but i would say it just happens. i can't fully explain why this happens.
maybe when i give examples for this, it is clearer what i am trying to say. a rockband might play totally wild, chaotic, punky music. not caring about the conventional sonic rules, and at least trying to abandon then.
but at one point, they to start to adopt the accepted music rules in their music. the common harmonies, melodies, rhythm, lyrical concepts, and such. they feel they can't just play what they want. they feel they to have use the similiar elements, methods that their contemporay bands have.
or in hardcore techno, this was most visible too. so many producers started out as all-out past 200 bpm gabba heads. eventually, they ended up doing the same boring techno-, housestyle music as all the other producers (i don't mean switching to house to be bad. but if you do house as everyone else, it is).
i can also give an example of my own music. when i started making music, i hated that even in hardcore, there was a type of groove, "funk" basically, a focus on the rhythm, on dancing. i hated that. thoroughly. i wanted to make music that was completely not "groovy", undancable. 'moveable to', but not dancable to. movable to in the sense you could've jumped around and shaken to it, but not danced.
but at one point i too felt i "had to" add the 'techno' groove to my music. to make it dancable, to give it a flow, a common rhythm.
i can't say why i though that. but it was there. so i started to get in this groove crap too, and former listeners of my music said how they were annoyed by this change.
this doesn't mean you shouldn't evolve or change. but this is not evolving, but devolving. if you change, change into something new, or rather, change into something of your own design. if you change to do what other people already did, you are not changing, you are conforming.
so this is the problem. artists, at one point, think they "have to" do something. that they "can not" do what they really would like to do. that they have to fit in to a specific style, concepts. that they cannot just leave all rules behind. they that cannot do what *they* want. in *their* own way.
it's tragic; it happens to almost everyone, to the best of us. but, i believe, it's a tendency that can be fought.
how does it happen? well, i knew many artists, directly, and i've followed many artists, and, actually, it happened to me too. so i knew where the problem is.
artists are individualists. they have to be. they don't like to follow rules. they follow their mind, their own mind. you can see that at the beginning of most artists work, that there is a breaking of former rules, of breaking free, making things different to their contemporaries. they are hated for that at first; but then celebrated for that. for being different. for going their own way. for being themselves. this holds true in rock, in techno, in punk, in any music scene basically.
so, artists tried to break free. eventually they found their way. their own way, as i said. they are now liked for this, and they have a following for that. they often have a clear idea what they did not like in music of others, that was before. certain musical concepts they wanted to change, or new ones they wanted to create. doing music in different speed, rhythm, production. or in a bigger picture, different mood, thought, feel.
it is going fine and well. but then, at one point the following happens. a new conviction, a new thought enters the artists head. that he 'can't do' what he wants. that, he too, has to follow a rule. the rules.
he was celebrated for doing what he wants, not caring about the rest. but now he thinks he cannot do this.
there are various reasons for that. but i would say it just happens. i can't fully explain why this happens.
maybe when i give examples for this, it is clearer what i am trying to say. a rockband might play totally wild, chaotic, punky music. not caring about the conventional sonic rules, and at least trying to abandon then.
but at one point, they to start to adopt the accepted music rules in their music. the common harmonies, melodies, rhythm, lyrical concepts, and such. they feel they can't just play what they want. they feel they to have use the similiar elements, methods that their contemporay bands have.
or in hardcore techno, this was most visible too. so many producers started out as all-out past 200 bpm gabba heads. eventually, they ended up doing the same boring techno-, housestyle music as all the other producers (i don't mean switching to house to be bad. but if you do house as everyone else, it is).
i can also give an example of my own music. when i started making music, i hated that even in hardcore, there was a type of groove, "funk" basically, a focus on the rhythm, on dancing. i hated that. thoroughly. i wanted to make music that was completely not "groovy", undancable. 'moveable to', but not dancable to. movable to in the sense you could've jumped around and shaken to it, but not danced.
but at one point i too felt i "had to" add the 'techno' groove to my music. to make it dancable, to give it a flow, a common rhythm.
i can't say why i though that. but it was there. so i started to get in this groove crap too, and former listeners of my music said how they were annoyed by this change.
this doesn't mean you shouldn't evolve or change. but this is not evolving, but devolving. if you change, change into something new, or rather, change into something of your own design. if you change to do what other people already did, you are not changing, you are conforming.
so this is the problem. artists, at one point, think they "have to" do something. that they "can not" do what they really would like to do. that they have to fit in to a specific style, concepts. that they cannot just leave all rules behind. they that cannot do what *they* want. in *their* own way.
it's tragic; it happens to almost everyone, to the best of us. but, i believe, it's a tendency that can be fought.
How To Create New Forms Of Music
there has been some talk about the stagnation of music lately; also, there has been the opinion that the evolution of music has reached a final stage, and that no new genres, styles, bigger concepts and bigger changes in music are possible anymore. that everything has been their already in some way, and is there, and not much new can come after this present point of music. from a rational point this is of course laughable; and reminds one of those scientists in the middle ages, in the victorian ages, or way before that maybe, who also thought that 'everything was discovered' already, all riddles of the universe solved - only to be disproven by the decades to come. if you think there could be no new musical concepts, genres, fields - this like a man aroun galileo's time thinking that nothing would come anymore after the theory that the sun revolves around the earth, as this is somewhat a "final point" in science.
but it must be said, that the musical evolution has really somewhat stagnated in the 1 or 2 decades. there is no "that" groundbreaking new style or new movement. the music that is listened to these days belongs mostly to categories that are around for more than 20 years already: rock, techno, hiphop... that would've been as if the 60s youth hadn't listened to the doors and jefferson airplane, but only to the same music as their parents, or maybe grandparents, did. no rebellious youth movement in sight! no call for utopia, musically or politically.
this tendency is then somewhat used as a proof that no music of a completely new character is possible anymore. if it was, why didn't it evolve in the last decades?
so what is the truth about this? it is that new music, completely new genres, completely new concepts, are very much possible, they are definately possible. and they are actually not hard to come by with. a new music movement could easily be created.
okay, so how does one arrive at new music?
easy. just use your mind. your ability to reason. think of how new music could be possible, how new music would be. analyse it, reflect it, ponder on it. or, more exactly: try to think of what wasn't there before. what defines the music that has been around? what could be done elsewise? what would be "new"? what was overlooked so far? what has not been tried out yet?
and, more exactly, you will see that most music so far has followed rules; and a lot of them have not been broken that much yet; get rid of the rules and you can create new music as easy drinking a glass of water.
and, even more exactly, these are for example the rhytms and time signatures, that are beeing followed rigidly so far. there are not much techno tracks with a 7/9 rhythm, yes? or that slow down and speed up while they play? now, 7/9 techno would not that be of a complete "new genre". but it would be already a nice change. this was just exploring one concept - the rhythm - and the rest stayed the same, which is why it's not that groundbreaking yet. get rid of all, or most rules - and the new sound is there.
look at all concepts in music. reflect them, criticise them, change them, move ahead from then. then you have new music.
so, the question is, when the evolution, or revolution of music is done as "easily" - be sure, the task might harder than it looks - why, oh why, has it not been done already? are all producers stupid or what. no, they are not stupid. but after the last revolution in music; with genres like techno, rave, hardcore, ambient, there has been a massive anti-intellectual current in the music scenes. *thinking* of musical concepts, intellectualizing music, analysing it and reflecting it is seen as highly suspicious. there is a current that music must not be intellectual, but emotional, physical, for dancing, for feelings, and not food for your heads, for the intellect. it should be said that emotion, "fun", and partying is not contradictionary in essence, to the contrary. techno was intellectual music at first, and it made a million ravers go nuts on the dancefloor.
so, yes, the move right now is that music should be "emotional", as in indie pop ballads about sad, sad topics of life(i use sarcasm here), or pre-cut formula based house music that is for "partying" or "clubbing" and dancing. that is not reflected or intellectual.
but, this is where the change begins. music has to be intellectual in origin, in intention, in mode again. it has to be smart again.
so, start your head, feed your mind, think, debate, question, criticse. and new music will come to you easily.
but it must be said, that the musical evolution has really somewhat stagnated in the 1 or 2 decades. there is no "that" groundbreaking new style or new movement. the music that is listened to these days belongs mostly to categories that are around for more than 20 years already: rock, techno, hiphop... that would've been as if the 60s youth hadn't listened to the doors and jefferson airplane, but only to the same music as their parents, or maybe grandparents, did. no rebellious youth movement in sight! no call for utopia, musically or politically.
this tendency is then somewhat used as a proof that no music of a completely new character is possible anymore. if it was, why didn't it evolve in the last decades?
so what is the truth about this? it is that new music, completely new genres, completely new concepts, are very much possible, they are definately possible. and they are actually not hard to come by with. a new music movement could easily be created.
okay, so how does one arrive at new music?
easy. just use your mind. your ability to reason. think of how new music could be possible, how new music would be. analyse it, reflect it, ponder on it. or, more exactly: try to think of what wasn't there before. what defines the music that has been around? what could be done elsewise? what would be "new"? what was overlooked so far? what has not been tried out yet?
and, more exactly, you will see that most music so far has followed rules; and a lot of them have not been broken that much yet; get rid of the rules and you can create new music as easy drinking a glass of water.
and, even more exactly, these are for example the rhytms and time signatures, that are beeing followed rigidly so far. there are not much techno tracks with a 7/9 rhythm, yes? or that slow down and speed up while they play? now, 7/9 techno would not that be of a complete "new genre". but it would be already a nice change. this was just exploring one concept - the rhythm - and the rest stayed the same, which is why it's not that groundbreaking yet. get rid of all, or most rules - and the new sound is there.
look at all concepts in music. reflect them, criticise them, change them, move ahead from then. then you have new music.
so, the question is, when the evolution, or revolution of music is done as "easily" - be sure, the task might harder than it looks - why, oh why, has it not been done already? are all producers stupid or what. no, they are not stupid. but after the last revolution in music; with genres like techno, rave, hardcore, ambient, there has been a massive anti-intellectual current in the music scenes. *thinking* of musical concepts, intellectualizing music, analysing it and reflecting it is seen as highly suspicious. there is a current that music must not be intellectual, but emotional, physical, for dancing, for feelings, and not food for your heads, for the intellect. it should be said that emotion, "fun", and partying is not contradictionary in essence, to the contrary. techno was intellectual music at first, and it made a million ravers go nuts on the dancefloor.
so, yes, the move right now is that music should be "emotional", as in indie pop ballads about sad, sad topics of life(i use sarcasm here), or pre-cut formula based house music that is for "partying" or "clubbing" and dancing. that is not reflected or intellectual.
but, this is where the change begins. music has to be intellectual in origin, in intention, in mode again. it has to be smart again.
so, start your head, feed your mind, think, debate, question, criticse. and new music will come to you easily.
The Closedness Of Possibilities
when listening to music of various decades, i can't help to feel that there is somewhat of a gap somewhere around 1980. there is a lack of vision, or maybe not that, as there was quite some experimentation - but the creativity, to most part, doesn't feel as bright anymore, and more importantly, there is a lack of freedom. both directly - think of the improvised, jammed electronic krautrock of the 70s, without time signatures, without set rules, and the overly sequenced, pinned to a straight formula, electronics of the 80s. but also in expression, in feeling, in emotion. but this is not also in society. could've been the resistance of the 60s and 70s still be possible in the 80s? utopian ideas hit the youth in the 60s, and they were convinced by it, and ventured out, wanted to go beyond the straight path, the given society, the given circumstances. and their minds were free enough to know the truth of this. who could still dream of a utopian society in the 80s? who still worked for revolution - and deemed it possible? of course there were some - probably more as in the 2000 decade. but nothing compared to the 60s.
in the 80s, society as it is, with capitalists and yuppies and consumer goods, and government and cops and restrictions and boredom, exceeding boredom, was more or less accepted by the majority. they think they "knew" life, the world, went like this, and no change was possibilty. people hadn't the creativity, the imagination, the free intellect anymore, to envision, conceive a different society, a different life, a different world.
the possibilites of life, of society, of the world, had been closed. but not by laws or a police force or the military. but in imagination, in the heads of people, in their minds. for utopia is always a possibility, at least for your own life - but their ideas, of "how the world was and is always gonna be" had been fixed in their heads, unchangable.
of course this didn't just go for social change and utopia. everything became more strict, frozen, solid. as shows, to me, in the music too, where the freedom of expression and breaking down of all rules was replaced with very fixed, rigid musical structures again.
even in the realm of pop, the music of the 70s felt more free than the computerized, sequenced, numb pop of the 80s.
which does of course not mean that wonderous music works or ideas could not be found in the 80s too; but they became rare and their quality changed.
this is not a straight progression either; in the 90s, in the ambient experiments, parts of industrial metal and rock music, in all the techno genres, this freedom came back; experimentation was possible anymore, and the breaking of rules. yet the rules were never as abandonded as in 2 and 3 decades before the 90s. yet there was a feel of freedom again, and of utopia, and the rave, techno, trance subculture clang to a lot of utopian ideals in their beginning, if not as outright political as it would have been preferable, maybe.
during the end of the 90s, with the first decade of the 2000s, the closedness of possibilites became more total than ever. the utopia of rave was gone. music became more pre-designed, formula-based, pre-cut, factorylike created as ever before. with 1000s of mindless mainstream pop tunes being churned out that felt more soulless and similiar than ever before. oh, that doesn't mean that pop in the 70s or 60s was necessarily a honest business. but it was not as imprisoning for the mind as the music became after 2000s.
and, again, as these things are connected, the same happened on a social and cultural scale too. it was the time i ventured into the real world anarchist scenes. even these anarchists didn't believe in revolution or change anymore. maybe, maybe, in a century ahead. but not anytime soon, not a possibility in one's experienced life.
and it was the time the "standard life" was prescribed for the masses, beat down deeply into their minds; having a "good job", a house, a wive, two-three kids. basing ones life on consumer goods; the best car, the best TV set, the best electronic toys. not being a rebel, not rising up, not venturing for utopia. and almost anyone fell for this. imagination had been limited once again.
and, capitalist society, even though it's crisises were more visible before, was now accepted as a total fact, unfightable, unchangable. 'society was like this, and ever will be like this'. 'you have to accept the world as it is'. the freedom of the minds of people, to conceive of a different world, a different life, a different society, was gone. they only accepted the world as it was presented a million times over and over again by the mindnumbing mass media. no exploration of different ways possible anymore.
now it's 2014, and just like in the 90s, things seem to change once again. the minds of people seem to be more active, more free again. there is a new interest in anarchy, in anarchism and utopia, as i mentioned elsewhere. new social models and lifepaths are debated again.
also the music seems to be more free again. seems to have more vision again. yet, the test if this holds true for me is, and should always be, how "rules" in music are treated. if rules in music are fixed and followed and "have to be" followed, a freedom of the mind is not possible. same goes for society. so let's see how the attitutde towards rules goes along.
i could very well imagine we are heading for utopia again. let's hope it's true.
in the 80s, society as it is, with capitalists and yuppies and consumer goods, and government and cops and restrictions and boredom, exceeding boredom, was more or less accepted by the majority. they think they "knew" life, the world, went like this, and no change was possibilty. people hadn't the creativity, the imagination, the free intellect anymore, to envision, conceive a different society, a different life, a different world.
the possibilites of life, of society, of the world, had been closed. but not by laws or a police force or the military. but in imagination, in the heads of people, in their minds. for utopia is always a possibility, at least for your own life - but their ideas, of "how the world was and is always gonna be" had been fixed in their heads, unchangable.
of course this didn't just go for social change and utopia. everything became more strict, frozen, solid. as shows, to me, in the music too, where the freedom of expression and breaking down of all rules was replaced with very fixed, rigid musical structures again.
even in the realm of pop, the music of the 70s felt more free than the computerized, sequenced, numb pop of the 80s.
which does of course not mean that wonderous music works or ideas could not be found in the 80s too; but they became rare and their quality changed.
this is not a straight progression either; in the 90s, in the ambient experiments, parts of industrial metal and rock music, in all the techno genres, this freedom came back; experimentation was possible anymore, and the breaking of rules. yet the rules were never as abandonded as in 2 and 3 decades before the 90s. yet there was a feel of freedom again, and of utopia, and the rave, techno, trance subculture clang to a lot of utopian ideals in their beginning, if not as outright political as it would have been preferable, maybe.
during the end of the 90s, with the first decade of the 2000s, the closedness of possibilites became more total than ever. the utopia of rave was gone. music became more pre-designed, formula-based, pre-cut, factorylike created as ever before. with 1000s of mindless mainstream pop tunes being churned out that felt more soulless and similiar than ever before. oh, that doesn't mean that pop in the 70s or 60s was necessarily a honest business. but it was not as imprisoning for the mind as the music became after 2000s.
and, again, as these things are connected, the same happened on a social and cultural scale too. it was the time i ventured into the real world anarchist scenes. even these anarchists didn't believe in revolution or change anymore. maybe, maybe, in a century ahead. but not anytime soon, not a possibility in one's experienced life.
and it was the time the "standard life" was prescribed for the masses, beat down deeply into their minds; having a "good job", a house, a wive, two-three kids. basing ones life on consumer goods; the best car, the best TV set, the best electronic toys. not being a rebel, not rising up, not venturing for utopia. and almost anyone fell for this. imagination had been limited once again.
and, capitalist society, even though it's crisises were more visible before, was now accepted as a total fact, unfightable, unchangable. 'society was like this, and ever will be like this'. 'you have to accept the world as it is'. the freedom of the minds of people, to conceive of a different world, a different life, a different society, was gone. they only accepted the world as it was presented a million times over and over again by the mindnumbing mass media. no exploration of different ways possible anymore.
now it's 2014, and just like in the 90s, things seem to change once again. the minds of people seem to be more active, more free again. there is a new interest in anarchy, in anarchism and utopia, as i mentioned elsewhere. new social models and lifepaths are debated again.
also the music seems to be more free again. seems to have more vision again. yet, the test if this holds true for me is, and should always be, how "rules" in music are treated. if rules in music are fixed and followed and "have to be" followed, a freedom of the mind is not possible. same goes for society. so let's see how the attitutde towards rules goes along.
i could very well imagine we are heading for utopia again. let's hope it's true.
Taking Techno Seriously
there was a time when, at least by "serious" people, anything that was not academic music, classical compositions were not taken seriously. surely, cheap fun for the plebs, but not comparable to any of the great maestros! you could enjoy them, but please don't analyse them.
this his changed a lot - extremely - in the last decades. the barriers between "serious" and "entertaining" music have been ripped down. by bands who combined both approaches, but also by public opinion. i still remember a time when everything "pop" has been sneered at by intellectuals. the experimental rock of the 70s might have been the first that got the blessing and the acknwoledgement that in such noisy, emotional, touching music could actually be a lot to analyse, to interpret, to ponder on. the next thing was that also pop albums have become the focus of serious attention. pop is no longer seen as purely entertainment music, but also having the ability to have serious musical merits - and cultural, philosophical too. even the dreaded eye of academic research now often looks at rock, pop, even hiphop, metal, punk records and culture. some of the later development was that disco and dance music got the "credibility card" and are taken serious now.
but there is one thing that is still overlooked. techno, rave, gabber, hardcore, of the 90s and later. this music, by the vast majority, is still seen as childish, immature - pure hedonistic trash to many. and to me, it was never like that. techno always felt mature and serious and deep and meaningful - being no lesser hedonistic and fun and ecstatic at the same time, mind you. so, my wish would be that slowly people would start to realise, that the same serious approach, the pondering and interpretation and worship, that is done to the famous rock and pop albums in the moment, could one day arrive at the important techno albums and EPs. that people realise that techno doesn't have to be cheaply produced music for dimwits.
and indeed, in techno, rave, hardtrance, some of the most complex and clever and intelligent production i encountered so far can be found. techno has so many philosophical, cultural, social, political connections; hints; ideas; thoughtsets (one idea of mine is that one of the reasons techno never had an outspoken political stance as such is that it was simply too complicated to express it in this way; and easier to express sonically). one can deep digger at techno, one can find so many things. there is plenty of stuff to activate ones mind on, to think about. this is the shame; that techno was not seen as the serious, deep music it is - until yet. i have a feeling this might change soon. but, also keep in mind, it is hedonistic and fun at the same time.
this his changed a lot - extremely - in the last decades. the barriers between "serious" and "entertaining" music have been ripped down. by bands who combined both approaches, but also by public opinion. i still remember a time when everything "pop" has been sneered at by intellectuals. the experimental rock of the 70s might have been the first that got the blessing and the acknwoledgement that in such noisy, emotional, touching music could actually be a lot to analyse, to interpret, to ponder on. the next thing was that also pop albums have become the focus of serious attention. pop is no longer seen as purely entertainment music, but also having the ability to have serious musical merits - and cultural, philosophical too. even the dreaded eye of academic research now often looks at rock, pop, even hiphop, metal, punk records and culture. some of the later development was that disco and dance music got the "credibility card" and are taken serious now.
but there is one thing that is still overlooked. techno, rave, gabber, hardcore, of the 90s and later. this music, by the vast majority, is still seen as childish, immature - pure hedonistic trash to many. and to me, it was never like that. techno always felt mature and serious and deep and meaningful - being no lesser hedonistic and fun and ecstatic at the same time, mind you. so, my wish would be that slowly people would start to realise, that the same serious approach, the pondering and interpretation and worship, that is done to the famous rock and pop albums in the moment, could one day arrive at the important techno albums and EPs. that people realise that techno doesn't have to be cheaply produced music for dimwits.
and indeed, in techno, rave, hardtrance, some of the most complex and clever and intelligent production i encountered so far can be found. techno has so many philosophical, cultural, social, political connections; hints; ideas; thoughtsets (one idea of mine is that one of the reasons techno never had an outspoken political stance as such is that it was simply too complicated to express it in this way; and easier to express sonically). one can deep digger at techno, one can find so many things. there is plenty of stuff to activate ones mind on, to think about. this is the shame; that techno was not seen as the serious, deep music it is - until yet. i have a feeling this might change soon. but, also keep in mind, it is hedonistic and fun at the same time.
Techno - Needs More Synthetics
in the last years i probably listened less to electronics and techno than to rock and other genres. this was because i was looking for a certain "earthy" quality in music, that for example 70s heavy metal had, or funk had, or hip hop had. to listen to music, that feels groovy, "funky", makes you want to dance and to move. i noticed that techno could have that quality too; detroit comes to mind; the proto-detroit of cybotron. the early acidhouse and rave around 88-92. the techno i used to love as a teen; the hardtrance, and complex techno recordings of the mid 90s, became bland too me. the sound sounded so plastic to me; the synth, the drums, everything, even the basslines. completely different to the "funk" of early house. it felt so artificial, so synthetic.
now, this has turned the opposite direction for me. the "synthetic" quality of hardtrance and rave productions of mid 90s is very fascinating for me; the way to go. when it is done intentionally, it is great; to make music of pure logic, purely artificial, abstract - not "earthy" in any way! i noticed there is more music that has that quality to me; electronic krautrock of the 70s (also, paradoxicall, at the same time, very earthy). chiptunes. amiga .mod music.
also, of course the experimental hardcore of the mid to late 90s was like that, an all out attack on anything funky groove. for me it is the way to go for the future. need more synthetics! pure abstraction.
now, this has turned the opposite direction for me. the "synthetic" quality of hardtrance and rave productions of mid 90s is very fascinating for me; the way to go. when it is done intentionally, it is great; to make music of pure logic, purely artificial, abstract - not "earthy" in any way! i noticed there is more music that has that quality to me; electronic krautrock of the 70s (also, paradoxicall, at the same time, very earthy). chiptunes. amiga .mod music.
also, of course the experimental hardcore of the mid to late 90s was like that, an all out attack on anything funky groove. for me it is the way to go for the future. need more synthetics! pure abstraction.
Right Wing Tendencies
there is a worrying growth of the right, especially the extreme right in europe right now (the date is mid 2014). i think this ties in, a lot, to what i said elsewhere, the growing chasm of people following ideals, and those who do not. as there is also a second thing to this tendency, to this chasm. which is the all-out assault against the mind, the intellect, the capability to think, to reason, to imagine, that is going on now, that become total somewhen around the year 2000. how does this tie in to the rise of the right? because, in the end, all their positions, all their moving, comes down to this. don't think, don't reason, don't criticise, don't questions. it is seen in their stance about gender issues, homosexuality and such, for example. to them, a man is a man, a woman is a woman, a man "dates" only a woman, and so in. so is it to them, so was it always to them. now what freaks them out that people have started to think about this. and started to question, to debate, to talk. about gender, about sexuality. and this scares them beyond belief. that people use their mind about the question of gender now. or rather, that people use their mind at all, to this extent. so they want that gender is accepted "as it was" and is not debated, not intellectually addressed, not thought about.
the same, in a different way, is about the concept of "races", ethnics and such. for them it is like this: "whites" were always superior, the others lesser. do not question this! do not think about it! do not *think*. keep it this way. also, this anti-intellectualism ties in in another way with racism. which is that there has been a 180 degree change in racist ideology, which obviously has not been noticed by many yet. the racism of the past was build around the idea that the "other races" were of inferior intellect, the white of superior intellect. "dumb niggers", "not good for anything". now it is the total opposite: they are afraid of "arabs", of "gypsies", of "blacks", because they think that they hide something that the "liberals" don't see; that they are cunning, sticking together, developing secret plans, to undermine society, moral, ethics. essentially, what the racists are now implying, but not saying or realising, is that "whites" are dumber than the other "races". it is always portrayed in a way that there is a society of "whites", who are simple-minded but honest in intentions, who do not realise the too-clever plan of the "arabs" or the "jews" or the "blacks" yet to undermine everything yet. (in regard of jews this was actually part of the "old fashioned" racism too; but it is new for different "ethnics"). it's obvious that this is part of a wider anti-intellectualism - the "arab" who has a too clever plan and is therefore to be feared but fought against.
we have covered, sexuality and "ethnicity" yet; it should be easy to see how the other right wing tendencies are anti-intellectual in origin too.
and yes, this is the big thing, the big problem; the all-out war that is going on against intellectuality, against the mind and the ability to think, in almost every aspect of society in the moment; in art; in politics; in culture. it is a worrying, dangerous tendency. but it is time that those who find themselves at the other side of this conflict, to stand up and struggle for their cause too.
the same, in a different way, is about the concept of "races", ethnics and such. for them it is like this: "whites" were always superior, the others lesser. do not question this! do not think about it! do not *think*. keep it this way. also, this anti-intellectualism ties in in another way with racism. which is that there has been a 180 degree change in racist ideology, which obviously has not been noticed by many yet. the racism of the past was build around the idea that the "other races" were of inferior intellect, the white of superior intellect. "dumb niggers", "not good for anything". now it is the total opposite: they are afraid of "arabs", of "gypsies", of "blacks", because they think that they hide something that the "liberals" don't see; that they are cunning, sticking together, developing secret plans, to undermine society, moral, ethics. essentially, what the racists are now implying, but not saying or realising, is that "whites" are dumber than the other "races". it is always portrayed in a way that there is a society of "whites", who are simple-minded but honest in intentions, who do not realise the too-clever plan of the "arabs" or the "jews" or the "blacks" yet to undermine everything yet. (in regard of jews this was actually part of the "old fashioned" racism too; but it is new for different "ethnics"). it's obvious that this is part of a wider anti-intellectualism - the "arab" who has a too clever plan and is therefore to be feared but fought against.
we have covered, sexuality and "ethnicity" yet; it should be easy to see how the other right wing tendencies are anti-intellectual in origin too.
and yes, this is the big thing, the big problem; the all-out war that is going on against intellectuality, against the mind and the ability to think, in almost every aspect of society in the moment; in art; in politics; in culture. it is a worrying, dangerous tendency. but it is time that those who find themselves at the other side of this conflict, to stand up and struggle for their cause too.
It Doesn't Matter
i talked about the difference between the ideal, the ideas, and the tangible, the direct in quite some texts now, and how they are - basically - irreconcilable. but this has some further consequences; on your person. because in our society, the worth of a person is estimated by the tangible, direct things he has; his job, money, social standing, luxury, power, fame. but this is not important. it doesn't matter. what matters is the mind of a person, his emotions, his feelings, his creativity, his thoughts. it doesn't matter if someone is homeless, or a junkie, or a loner, or disabled, or a freak, or a crimimal. this doesn't take away your worth. this doesn't take away your beauty. if you have beautiful thoughts, wonderful emotions, if you are honest, then you are worthy, then you are wealthy, no matter what your surroundings are, no matter if you are the worst loser on planet earth. well, yes, these things "do" matter; but not to your worth, not to your beauty. life is more enjoyable if you are not homeless or sick. but again, it doesn't take your own, self, personal worth away.
in the end it gets even farther than that; because the worth is not defined, in the end, by your thoughts or personality either. *every* human is beautiful, at his heart and as himself. every one is wonderful, everyone is great. and nothing, nothing ever could take your beauty away. and basically, most of the problems you face, are because you have forgotton this, that nothing, no circumstance, no action, no event, could take your beauty away. if you could see your beauty as it is, your problems would go away within a short time.
in the end it gets even farther than that; because the worth is not defined, in the end, by your thoughts or personality either. *every* human is beautiful, at his heart and as himself. every one is wonderful, everyone is great. and nothing, nothing ever could take your beauty away. and basically, most of the problems you face, are because you have forgotton this, that nothing, no circumstance, no action, no event, could take your beauty away. if you could see your beauty as it is, your problems would go away within a short time.
The Distribution Of Wealth
in capitalist society, and logic, in theory wealth is given, and moves towards those, who are the most skilled, intelligent, industrious, work hard and are clever enough to know how to become rich. defenders of capitalism explains this with a type of circular logic, which in itself is already insane enough to be laughed at. they say more or less something like this: "those who work hard become rich and those who are rich are those who worked hard". "if someone is a millionare, he must've worked hard - because if he didn't work hard, how did he become rich?" that's basically their logic. it reminds one somewhat of the logic of religious fanatics - "if he is a prophept, people would flock to him, and as we all flock to him, he has to be a prophet!", but let's take things from another side now. let us assume it is correct. then this would still be false. let us assume, that those who know how to use the market system, who are clever, know how to gain power, have skills for this, have some leadership skills, and such, are clever and so on, are the ones that get rich, get all the wealth. this would still pose a problem. as these are skills, abilities, on how to gain tangible things - wealth, power, luxury. but this is not what life should be about. life shouldn't be about the ability to acquire the must luxury, the most social esteem. it should be about devolopling your mental skills, your emotions, your morality, your ethics. your behavior, your knowledge - your goodwill. about good deeds, helping other humans, doing good to them. *this* is what should be rewarded - not the ability to acquire a million dollars. the homeless man, who got thrown off his lifepath by an accident, but never did any soul harm in life would much more deserve the money and the fame of a millionaire, who ruined the lifes of a thousand people by his questionable business practices. people in the thousands should rather listen to this homeless man, than to the seminars and speeches by a reckless businessman who promises them to be rich too.
but not only that; the conception of wealth is itself screwed. because true wealth is not money, is not fast cars, is not a luxurxy apartment; it is wealth of the mind, of the heart. to be kind, to be honest, to be helpful. and to be insightful, to be thoughtful. this is real, deep, honest wealth. a poor man, who has made peace with himself and the world, is a million times more wealthy than a billionaire who is haunted by stress and nightmares.
in the past; society still respected that. "philosophers" and "wise men", who left their homes and belongings, and lived a modest life - often living on the streets, or in caves - were amongst the most adored by the people; as they had mental wealth, "wealth" of the heart. only in our society, this is largely forgotten.
yet, it is still true.
but not only that; the conception of wealth is itself screwed. because true wealth is not money, is not fast cars, is not a luxurxy apartment; it is wealth of the mind, of the heart. to be kind, to be honest, to be helpful. and to be insightful, to be thoughtful. this is real, deep, honest wealth. a poor man, who has made peace with himself and the world, is a million times more wealthy than a billionaire who is haunted by stress and nightmares.
in the past; society still respected that. "philosophers" and "wise men", who left their homes and belongings, and lived a modest life - often living on the streets, or in caves - were amongst the most adored by the people; as they had mental wealth, "wealth" of the heart. only in our society, this is largely forgotten.
yet, it is still true.
Revolution and Reaction
human society seems to always have been driven by two forces, those of revolution and reaction. those who set out to change it, and those that tried to keep everything at it is. this is already a quite massive concept; yet i think it goes even farther, even deeper than that. it would be wrong, in my opinion, to just say that those of the reaction just want to "keep things", and also not those of the revolution to "change things"; just not progress and stillstand. there is something more. this is where the focus of the revolution lies.
most people's life, theyir whole life, resolves around things they know, and those are direct, tangible, obvious. their job, their home, their boss, their goverment and so on. things they know, that they can see, "touch", at least theorethically. that's the life they know, how it has always been. now, the revolutionary has something different. he set's out to change this; but this is not his main motor. the important thing is what he focuses on. and these are, ideals, ideas, theories, concepts, thoughts, vision, imagination, creativity, dreams. he has an idea, like justice, like freedom, like equality, like creativity. and this is where the reactionary and the revolutionary part. because this idea is not part of the tangible, familiar world that the reactionary knows. it does not lie in his job, his city, his government, his authorities, as he knows it. as it is an idea, not something tangible, not something you can see face to face, that you can encounter. and this is what scares reactionaries so deeply, and makes them more afraid as if their whole country would light up in flames, or if they would be chased in a forest by a thousand wolves. that there are ideas, ideals, concepts that are not just "tangible" - that are ideal, utopian, different, pure, honest. because the existance of this gives them a deep fear. for them, what is tangible, direct, is what is "holy" to them, so to say. the goverment - as it is. the family - as it is. the nation - as it is. that an utopian nation, a utopian society, a utopican community could exist, that is based not on "what is", but on ideas, theories, is something they can not take. because this means there is more than to what they know - not what they encounter every idea, but what goes beyond this - ideals, utopian thoughts, dreams.
the revolutionary, on the other hand, doesn't care about what is tangible. how "things are", and about which is said they they "always been this way and always will be". he cares about dreams and visions.
and he rightly does so. because what is ideal, in ideas, is much much important, much more pure and impressive than the world "as it is".
thus, the revolutionary and the reactionary can never meet, and thus society will swing each centuries between these focal points; until one day, maybe, utopian revolution will win over.
most people's life, theyir whole life, resolves around things they know, and those are direct, tangible, obvious. their job, their home, their boss, their goverment and so on. things they know, that they can see, "touch", at least theorethically. that's the life they know, how it has always been. now, the revolutionary has something different. he set's out to change this; but this is not his main motor. the important thing is what he focuses on. and these are, ideals, ideas, theories, concepts, thoughts, vision, imagination, creativity, dreams. he has an idea, like justice, like freedom, like equality, like creativity. and this is where the reactionary and the revolutionary part. because this idea is not part of the tangible, familiar world that the reactionary knows. it does not lie in his job, his city, his government, his authorities, as he knows it. as it is an idea, not something tangible, not something you can see face to face, that you can encounter. and this is what scares reactionaries so deeply, and makes them more afraid as if their whole country would light up in flames, or if they would be chased in a forest by a thousand wolves. that there are ideas, ideals, concepts that are not just "tangible" - that are ideal, utopian, different, pure, honest. because the existance of this gives them a deep fear. for them, what is tangible, direct, is what is "holy" to them, so to say. the goverment - as it is. the family - as it is. the nation - as it is. that an utopian nation, a utopian society, a utopican community could exist, that is based not on "what is", but on ideas, theories, is something they can not take. because this means there is more than to what they know - not what they encounter every idea, but what goes beyond this - ideals, utopian thoughts, dreams.
the revolutionary, on the other hand, doesn't care about what is tangible. how "things are", and about which is said they they "always been this way and always will be". he cares about dreams and visions.
and he rightly does so. because what is ideal, in ideas, is much much important, much more pure and impressive than the world "as it is".
thus, the revolutionary and the reactionary can never meet, and thus society will swing each centuries between these focal points; until one day, maybe, utopian revolution will win over.
Living Without Facebook
living without facebook is a bit like hiding in a basement while a hurricane is going down outside. there seems to be a lot happening on facebook, quite the storm, but what it is you don't know. it's funny how almost nothing spills out of facebook. everything facebook is contained in itself. sometimes i wonder what is happening on facebook, but it just passes, and tomorrow never knows. sometimes i discover artists i like on sites like soundcloud, youtube etc, and then am surprised that others already know them all; probably they connected through facebook. but i am not sure. anyway, it is a weird situation. hope the facebook virus passes one day.
Mission Statement
there is a certain objective, goal to my music in the moment. what is this goal? well i'm doing for music for almost two decades now, and i noticed there is a kind of maturing to the sound, the purpose, when you are in it for so long. when i started, i tried to experiment, try everything out, without really knowing where i would venture. right now i am more interested in a bigger picture to my music. in things, that are just not adding sounds or concepts in an almost random fashion - although this has its pros too, of course, and i guess i will venture there again soon. so my approach right now is not just thinking of things like, adding a rock guitar to a breakbeat or finding the most weird sample sources and such.
one of the main, the biggest influences on all music was, at least in its first period, which ran along 1997-2004 basically, was progressive rock, psychedelic experimental rock. the "epic" rock songs with their stunning lengths and solos in the 60s and 70s. not because i like rock so much - i hated rock, i hated e-guitars from the bottom of my heart. this felt so backwards. but it is obviously some of the most complex, complicated, intellectual music made in the last century. i am not sure one could find music of this complexity - before the rise of techno - in any other genre, that is not academic in origin. only jazz also comes to my mind (maybe there is more - i am not an expert of this).
so this was always there and a backing setting for my own music, which was far away from rock in any other sense, as it was purely digital, sample driven and such.
now, with this maturing of ideas, and with looking for perspectives, i thought about furthering this connection even more. to make a style of music, that is a connection of psychedelic rock and techno music.
this was an idea that seemed weird enough for me. because, at first glance, these styles are so far apart from each other - the "real" instrument jamming and the preprogrammed digital world of techno. it seemed like a task big enough and complex enough to be interesting.
also, what made it attractive to me, is that noone else does this right now. well, i am sure there are people - i seen it on soundcloud - but even my friends don't produce it that way. 95% of producers don't do it. because techno is now at a point where it's preprogrammed, preplanned, completely synthetic, completely digital, with softsynths and all and complex sequencing programs.
i wanted to get completely away from that. from sequenced music, from programmed music. to not create techno tracks - but to create techno jam sessions, spontanous, chaotic, random, improvised.
this also brings us to the third point. techno is not like it yet - but techno used to be that way. the early outings of acid house, and i think of detroit too, are much more closer to the rock sessions of the 70s than to the presequenced techno of today. keep in mind that even kraftwerk, the so-called (really?) pioneers of "techno" arose out of the psychedelic jam rock scene of germany.
if you listen to my tracks you might note that, yes, there are sequences too in them. but i liked this paradox. i liked this idea. i wanted to combine these seeemingly opposites. to make mathematic music, but yes, also to have it improvised at the same time. to improsive mathematic formulas on the go, if you will.
nostalgia plays a role too, maybe, but i don't seem it important. i just liked the approach, the complexity of experimental rock of those decades. and the spaciness too, of course.
so, after i made the decision to venture down that road i had to figure out how to put in a praxis. how could i jam with my sequencer program and the pre-programmed sounds, or rather, how could i jam them, block them, to create beautiful unordered things. well, i came up with some ideas eventually. i simply... ah, not the time to spill my artistic beans here just yet. it will have to remain a secret for now.
of course, i don't dare to say i succeeded with my task. maybe this music doesn't live up to expectations. but maybe this is also not the point. to music in generally.
but, hey, at least i tried, eh?
you can hear some of the sounds of this 'project' in my mixes:
Low Entropy - Techno Mix http://www.mixcloud.com/low_entropy/low-entropy-techno-mix-2014/
Low Entropy - Dark Hardcore mix http://www.mixcloud.com/low_entropy/low-entropy-dark-hardcore-mix-futuristic-hardcore/
Low Entropy - Doomtechno Mix http://www.mixcloud.com/low_entropy/doomtechno-mix-80-126-bpm/
one of the main, the biggest influences on all music was, at least in its first period, which ran along 1997-2004 basically, was progressive rock, psychedelic experimental rock. the "epic" rock songs with their stunning lengths and solos in the 60s and 70s. not because i like rock so much - i hated rock, i hated e-guitars from the bottom of my heart. this felt so backwards. but it is obviously some of the most complex, complicated, intellectual music made in the last century. i am not sure one could find music of this complexity - before the rise of techno - in any other genre, that is not academic in origin. only jazz also comes to my mind (maybe there is more - i am not an expert of this).
so this was always there and a backing setting for my own music, which was far away from rock in any other sense, as it was purely digital, sample driven and such.
now, with this maturing of ideas, and with looking for perspectives, i thought about furthering this connection even more. to make a style of music, that is a connection of psychedelic rock and techno music.
this was an idea that seemed weird enough for me. because, at first glance, these styles are so far apart from each other - the "real" instrument jamming and the preprogrammed digital world of techno. it seemed like a task big enough and complex enough to be interesting.
also, what made it attractive to me, is that noone else does this right now. well, i am sure there are people - i seen it on soundcloud - but even my friends don't produce it that way. 95% of producers don't do it. because techno is now at a point where it's preprogrammed, preplanned, completely synthetic, completely digital, with softsynths and all and complex sequencing programs.
i wanted to get completely away from that. from sequenced music, from programmed music. to not create techno tracks - but to create techno jam sessions, spontanous, chaotic, random, improvised.
this also brings us to the third point. techno is not like it yet - but techno used to be that way. the early outings of acid house, and i think of detroit too, are much more closer to the rock sessions of the 70s than to the presequenced techno of today. keep in mind that even kraftwerk, the so-called (really?) pioneers of "techno" arose out of the psychedelic jam rock scene of germany.
if you listen to my tracks you might note that, yes, there are sequences too in them. but i liked this paradox. i liked this idea. i wanted to combine these seeemingly opposites. to make mathematic music, but yes, also to have it improvised at the same time. to improsive mathematic formulas on the go, if you will.
nostalgia plays a role too, maybe, but i don't seem it important. i just liked the approach, the complexity of experimental rock of those decades. and the spaciness too, of course.
so, after i made the decision to venture down that road i had to figure out how to put in a praxis. how could i jam with my sequencer program and the pre-programmed sounds, or rather, how could i jam them, block them, to create beautiful unordered things. well, i came up with some ideas eventually. i simply... ah, not the time to spill my artistic beans here just yet. it will have to remain a secret for now.
of course, i don't dare to say i succeeded with my task. maybe this music doesn't live up to expectations. but maybe this is also not the point. to music in generally.
but, hey, at least i tried, eh?
you can hear some of the sounds of this 'project' in my mixes:
Low Entropy - Techno Mix http://www.mixcloud.com/low_entropy/low-entropy-techno-mix-2014/
Low Entropy - Dark Hardcore mix http://www.mixcloud.com/low_entropy/low-entropy-dark-hardcore-mix-futuristic-hardcore/
Low Entropy - Doomtechno Mix http://www.mixcloud.com/low_entropy/doomtechno-mix-80-126-bpm/
How Critical Debate Is Prevented
recently i noticed there are several methods that are often occur in debates, discussion, dialogues, when it comes to questioning things of the status quo, of capitalism, of "free market" society, of western society.
some of them are pretty intricate and seem clever - and convincing - at first, but when one understands them it is easy to see through them.
1. "it's complicated."
you hate to hear it in a relationship, and i hate it in debates too. when one critices the goverment, corporations, social problems, certain laws or actions, people react: 'oh, but you can't see it all black and white. there is more to it. it is more complicated. there is no easy solution. you have to see it from all sides.'
this brings us to the core problem underlying these "intellectual" methods: that those who use it take sides themselves, well the whole point of them bringing up is to take sides. the same conservatives who pull the "it's complicated" card when animal rights or fighting misogyny is brought up, do not find it is "complicated" when the issue is war, or police force, or the free market.
when you ask them if the police is necessary in a modern society, they won't say "not sure - it's complicated" they give a hearty, biased, dumb "yes" without trying to see this "from all sides" themselves. same when asking them if capitalism is necessary.
2. "do we know anything at all?"
while this might mostly occur to a stoner listening to a psyrock song, it is also used by conservatives of all walks of life in any conversations. 'you anarchists, you leftists think you are on the right side. but what is really 'right'? how can you be sure? can anyone truly say know he is 'right'?' similiar issues are addressed on wether one is fighting for a "good" cause or not. 'maybe the good of the anarchists is the bad for the others', and such. while it is necessary to questions ones own defintion of right and good now and then, generally getting lost in this is a cause of phiosophical bullshitits. really it's a case for high schoolers on their first acid trip, to wonder if we ever find out what is "good" or "true". you should not fall to social inactivity just because others doubt the answer. fight for your causes, if it's a good cause!
similiar, the taking sides phenomen is here of course too, as the conservatives who question the goodwill of the anarchists don't doubt the goodwill of the "brave" politicians-idiots and generals who run western countries and declare war on innocent nations.
3. "isn't everything the same?"
if you didn't think conservatives have the minds of people who went the wrong road with LSD, now you can be sure. after raising the question "do we know anything at all" we get "isn't everything the same". 'you leftradicals seem to quite like the rightwing radicals in your fanaticism, didn't this occur to you? isn't left and right really similiar? can you be sure? are you not the very thing you are fighting against?'. again, a severe case of philosophical bullshit dilemma. no, the left is not like the right, anarchists are not fascists, radical feminists are very different from radical male chauvinists. yes, it should be noted that one should not become the enemy oneself - it's funny this worry is raised by people who already very much "the enemy" themselves - but again this should not lead to the point of a philosphical wormhole, where everything is "somehow" the same and everything can be exchanged, yadda yadda.
4. rationalisation
this is the method that is mostly often used. the thing is, you can rationalise everything. eating humans to solve the world hunger problem? people could find rationalisations for that. total surveillance? yes some find pros for that. so, for everything the status quo does a rationalisation can be found.
this method might be the hardest to fight. but it is also very easy to see through, as the rationalisation is used for any thing *of* the status quo, but for nothing that is against it.
you can find a lot of people who use rationalisation when a policeman uses unlawful force on a youth. yet the same people won't rationalise it if the same youth uses "unlawful force" on some yuppie. yet there could be a lot of rationalisation found for this too; if only that he was hungry and needed the money to get some food.
but you will never see people apply this rationalisation, yet constantly trying to find of reasons and logic to defend everything of the status quo.
the "taking sides" is very easy to see here, and this enables one to see through this tactic.
there were some tacticts the conversative and reactionaries, who seem to be everywhere these days, use to defend the status quo, to defend western society and it's misdeeds and problems. maybe these hints can help you to see through these methods.
some of them are pretty intricate and seem clever - and convincing - at first, but when one understands them it is easy to see through them.
1. "it's complicated."
you hate to hear it in a relationship, and i hate it in debates too. when one critices the goverment, corporations, social problems, certain laws or actions, people react: 'oh, but you can't see it all black and white. there is more to it. it is more complicated. there is no easy solution. you have to see it from all sides.'
this brings us to the core problem underlying these "intellectual" methods: that those who use it take sides themselves, well the whole point of them bringing up is to take sides. the same conservatives who pull the "it's complicated" card when animal rights or fighting misogyny is brought up, do not find it is "complicated" when the issue is war, or police force, or the free market.
when you ask them if the police is necessary in a modern society, they won't say "not sure - it's complicated" they give a hearty, biased, dumb "yes" without trying to see this "from all sides" themselves. same when asking them if capitalism is necessary.
2. "do we know anything at all?"
while this might mostly occur to a stoner listening to a psyrock song, it is also used by conservatives of all walks of life in any conversations. 'you anarchists, you leftists think you are on the right side. but what is really 'right'? how can you be sure? can anyone truly say know he is 'right'?' similiar issues are addressed on wether one is fighting for a "good" cause or not. 'maybe the good of the anarchists is the bad for the others', and such. while it is necessary to questions ones own defintion of right and good now and then, generally getting lost in this is a cause of phiosophical bullshitits. really it's a case for high schoolers on their first acid trip, to wonder if we ever find out what is "good" or "true". you should not fall to social inactivity just because others doubt the answer. fight for your causes, if it's a good cause!
similiar, the taking sides phenomen is here of course too, as the conservatives who question the goodwill of the anarchists don't doubt the goodwill of the "brave" politicians-idiots and generals who run western countries and declare war on innocent nations.
3. "isn't everything the same?"
if you didn't think conservatives have the minds of people who went the wrong road with LSD, now you can be sure. after raising the question "do we know anything at all" we get "isn't everything the same". 'you leftradicals seem to quite like the rightwing radicals in your fanaticism, didn't this occur to you? isn't left and right really similiar? can you be sure? are you not the very thing you are fighting against?'. again, a severe case of philosophical bullshit dilemma. no, the left is not like the right, anarchists are not fascists, radical feminists are very different from radical male chauvinists. yes, it should be noted that one should not become the enemy oneself - it's funny this worry is raised by people who already very much "the enemy" themselves - but again this should not lead to the point of a philosphical wormhole, where everything is "somehow" the same and everything can be exchanged, yadda yadda.
4. rationalisation
this is the method that is mostly often used. the thing is, you can rationalise everything. eating humans to solve the world hunger problem? people could find rationalisations for that. total surveillance? yes some find pros for that. so, for everything the status quo does a rationalisation can be found.
this method might be the hardest to fight. but it is also very easy to see through, as the rationalisation is used for any thing *of* the status quo, but for nothing that is against it.
you can find a lot of people who use rationalisation when a policeman uses unlawful force on a youth. yet the same people won't rationalise it if the same youth uses "unlawful force" on some yuppie. yet there could be a lot of rationalisation found for this too; if only that he was hungry and needed the money to get some food.
but you will never see people apply this rationalisation, yet constantly trying to find of reasons and logic to defend everything of the status quo.
the "taking sides" is very easy to see here, and this enables one to see through this tactic.
there were some tacticts the conversative and reactionaries, who seem to be everywhere these days, use to defend the status quo, to defend western society and it's misdeeds and problems. maybe these hints can help you to see through these methods.
The Lost Treaure: .Mod Music
before the internet, there was the BBS scene. it is more or less unknown by now; what was it? basically, you had a modem, not a modern cable modem but one that could only send a few kilobytes per second. and with that you could connect to a BBS with other users; think of it as a webpage that had blocky 4
color graphics and chat, downloads, forums and other things, but you could only use one at a time and a download could take 1 hour in which you can not
use the computer. this was where the .mod scene strived. mods were and are tracks, songs, made by a tracker; they had two parts, the samples and the
sequences of the songs. which means that everyone could remix a mod he downloaded with direct access to all the samples and melodies, and this was encouraged. the BBS scene was huge; a large city could have literally hundreds of BBSes, and the .mod scene was huge too, and is still largely ignored, or just not known, by now. it was composed of enthusiasts from all walks of life who made music on their tracker programs and shared it for free. mods were uploaded as single files, as releases such as compilations, or used in so called "demos" (visual and auditive programs that showed the possibilites of computer graphics or told a story), and other things. they were also used in computergames and the largest part of, for example, amiga computergame tunes in that era were based on mod music. .mods came in all styles; techno, electro, jungle, industrial, dark ambient, "rock", hiphop - you name it. and they had many genres that only existed in the mod world, including the typical mod sound.
and amongst this is some of the most exciting, brilliant, creative, genius and genuine music i ever heard; i was disappointed with most "known" musical genres a few years ago, and when i rediscovered computer mods, it felt so fresh, so exciting, so new.
they have qualites that i found nowhere, or rather, seldomly in any other music.
what is so exciting about mods is hard to tell; check them out for yourself; it would be something to explore. i think it is largely because it is some of the most abstract music ever made. to me, it is more abstract than most experimental electronics i know. it is purely logical, technological, digital computer music made by pure nerds. this might not sound exciting, but trust me, it is.
one problem with the current lack of recognition of mod music is well, that they are enticingly cheesy often. there are very dark and sombre mod tunes; in fact there are mods i consider some of the darkest music i know. yet, let's face it, most are more a happy trip. the constant major chords and pitched up vocal sounds. yet, lately, people have started to look through the cheesiness of pop music and came to appreciate it; couldn't the same be done with mods? the seemingly happy sound doesn't feel out of place; it too feels synthetic and abstract.
so, yes, as i said, what stunned me was the amount of creativity and energy that was put into these tunes. there are harmonic strcuctures, rhythm structures, i rarely seen elsewhere. it is one of most creative examples of the use of sample based music.
just like videogame music has seen a surge of interest and serious appreciation in the last years, i think in the next years, or decade, the popularity for mod music might rise significantly too. be sure to check it out; there is so much wonderful music to be found.
color graphics and chat, downloads, forums and other things, but you could only use one at a time and a download could take 1 hour in which you can not
use the computer. this was where the .mod scene strived. mods were and are tracks, songs, made by a tracker; they had two parts, the samples and the
sequences of the songs. which means that everyone could remix a mod he downloaded with direct access to all the samples and melodies, and this was encouraged. the BBS scene was huge; a large city could have literally hundreds of BBSes, and the .mod scene was huge too, and is still largely ignored, or just not known, by now. it was composed of enthusiasts from all walks of life who made music on their tracker programs and shared it for free. mods were uploaded as single files, as releases such as compilations, or used in so called "demos" (visual and auditive programs that showed the possibilites of computer graphics or told a story), and other things. they were also used in computergames and the largest part of, for example, amiga computergame tunes in that era were based on mod music. .mods came in all styles; techno, electro, jungle, industrial, dark ambient, "rock", hiphop - you name it. and they had many genres that only existed in the mod world, including the typical mod sound.
and amongst this is some of the most exciting, brilliant, creative, genius and genuine music i ever heard; i was disappointed with most "known" musical genres a few years ago, and when i rediscovered computer mods, it felt so fresh, so exciting, so new.
they have qualites that i found nowhere, or rather, seldomly in any other music.
what is so exciting about mods is hard to tell; check them out for yourself; it would be something to explore. i think it is largely because it is some of the most abstract music ever made. to me, it is more abstract than most experimental electronics i know. it is purely logical, technological, digital computer music made by pure nerds. this might not sound exciting, but trust me, it is.
one problem with the current lack of recognition of mod music is well, that they are enticingly cheesy often. there are very dark and sombre mod tunes; in fact there are mods i consider some of the darkest music i know. yet, let's face it, most are more a happy trip. the constant major chords and pitched up vocal sounds. yet, lately, people have started to look through the cheesiness of pop music and came to appreciate it; couldn't the same be done with mods? the seemingly happy sound doesn't feel out of place; it too feels synthetic and abstract.
so, yes, as i said, what stunned me was the amount of creativity and energy that was put into these tunes. there are harmonic strcuctures, rhythm structures, i rarely seen elsewhere. it is one of most creative examples of the use of sample based music.
just like videogame music has seen a surge of interest and serious appreciation in the last years, i think in the next years, or decade, the popularity for mod music might rise significantly too. be sure to check it out; there is so much wonderful music to be found.
Why I Left Hardcore And Came Back
there was a statement from a movie that rang through my ears. i don't know the exact wording; but it ran around the lines of "we are mercenaries now; and mercenaries demand to be payed". it was in the early 2000s and i looked back on my "music thing". i had spend so much hours, so much energy, and quite a bit of money on the music. i did a lot of sacrifices for it. as a teen i didn't went out but locked myself in on weekends so i could do my music; i did much deeper sacrificies for which most men would call me insane. i had made over 100 tracks in almost seven years; i tried to put all my heart and emotion that i could spare into it. but what did i get for it? it felt like nothing; nothing at all. okay i played at parties on the weekend. had some records out. but what did it mean. nothing. nothing at all. during weekdays, i was just the same loser as before. of course; this was no surprise to me; i didn't expect it otherwise; sending my message out into the world by the occasial live act or record release was what i wanted, not fame or recognition or money or whores. but it didn't click anymore to me. it felt not physical; it was somewhat of an ideal, an ideal thing to do. but there was no gain in my physical life, in my tangible life for it.
i talked about similiar people with similiar acts in the hardcore scene during the time; and they felt similiar; that there was nothing to gain, no utopia to reach with this sound anymore.
so, i did what others did. i dropped it, and desired to put more energy into more tangible things, other music.
i imagined, what could happen now. what suddenly became possible. not having to wait for the occasial hardcore party every 6 months; going to parties, dating girls, enjoying life, getting all the pleasures i restrained myself from the years before.
and it sucked. it sucked so hard. the non-hardcore parties were so intensely boring; it was hellish. dating girls was annoying and disappointing. everything else was shit too. during these years, i wondered how people actually manage to *live* without experimental or hardcore sound, or a similiar artistic or otherwise venture. it seemed like an impossibility to me. everything in this society was so intensely boring.
so, then, it did click to me. no, i do not need to be payed. i am not a mercenary. i do not need tangible results on my music, my records, or liveact. doing it purely for the music is more than enough for me, rewarding enough for me. i had utopia within the reach of my hand all these years and had forgotten it. to just put out the sound, to get some feedback on it, good or bad, is already so rewarding.
i came back, and everything was perfect.
i talked about similiar people with similiar acts in the hardcore scene during the time; and they felt similiar; that there was nothing to gain, no utopia to reach with this sound anymore.
so, i did what others did. i dropped it, and desired to put more energy into more tangible things, other music.
i imagined, what could happen now. what suddenly became possible. not having to wait for the occasial hardcore party every 6 months; going to parties, dating girls, enjoying life, getting all the pleasures i restrained myself from the years before.
and it sucked. it sucked so hard. the non-hardcore parties were so intensely boring; it was hellish. dating girls was annoying and disappointing. everything else was shit too. during these years, i wondered how people actually manage to *live* without experimental or hardcore sound, or a similiar artistic or otherwise venture. it seemed like an impossibility to me. everything in this society was so intensely boring.
so, then, it did click to me. no, i do not need to be payed. i am not a mercenary. i do not need tangible results on my music, my records, or liveact. doing it purely for the music is more than enough for me, rewarding enough for me. i had utopia within the reach of my hand all these years and had forgotten it. to just put out the sound, to get some feedback on it, good or bad, is already so rewarding.
i came back, and everything was perfect.
The Big Change In Society
there has been a big change in society, in western civilization, that can be pinned to have happened somewhen around the year 2000. of course it had started earlier. it was one of the biggest changes of the last 200 years, maybe even 2000 years. it is not that people have not noticed it; a lot of aware of it; they know that things have changed; but they are not really aware of *what* has changed, or cannot put it into words; especially since this change makes it somewhat unadressable.
so what has changed?
in the 20th century, western society was an idealist society. well that is not quite true; it was already less idealist than the 19th century, or the middles ages, or the ancient societies, for that matter. but it was still somewhat idealistic. what does this mean? that means that life, the whole of existance, was, in the end, build around ideals. the ideal of society, of a greater good, a greater purpose, sense and meaning. the idea and ideal that society is there for the wellbeing of every individual; for the progress of mankind; that the goverment, the politicians are there for that. oh, that doesn't mean that this idealism was total; of course there were doubts; people who "know it better"; or disappointed people living on the fringe. but generally, this was the focal point of society, of life. people did not go to work merely for a paycheck; it gave them a deeper fulfillment to take a part in society, to do something for society, to be part of this "greater good". if course we know this was a lie to most part; politicians, the goverment, society, strove for power and did horrible things in that part, and never really *actually* did strife for the greater good. but the problem lies deeper. the idealism was not just attached to the status quo; when the hippies, the leftists, the worker organisations realised that the status quo did not further the ideal it was supposed to keep. by rebellion, strikes, uprising, resistance, they too fought for *ideals*, for a better world, a better society, utopia.
and this brings us to the problem of society nowadays. today, people are aware that the goverment, the politicians, are a lie. they know the big corporations operate on greed, not for a bigger good. but they do not fight this; they do not strive for an ideal or a different idea. because they got no ideals anymore. because the ideals are gone.
again i should add that i don't mean that old society or the "old values" were perfect; they were almost the opposite; but society was organized around ideals and this is important. and this is not the case. there are no ideals anymore. neither amongst the ruling or the middle class or the lower class or even the outcasts. everyone is just fighting for what he thinks is his "own good". they collect their paycheck, not to further mankind, but to waste it on consumer goods and such. who is still striving for an ideal? who is fighting for an ideal? anybody?
it should be noted that this problem runs much much deep than it seems. it is not that everyone had gone "egoistic" or "self-absorded". people have lost their contact to ideals. they do not even believe they exist anymore. *if* someone actually should fight for a better good, people do not think "what a fool, i better strive for self-gain". they think he is a fluke, a fake, a poser, who itself just pretends to go for a greater good, and has ultimately "self-gain" purposes too, such as fame and money or impressing people. they can not believe that someone could really use his energy on a greater good or an ideal. because they don't know what an ideal is anymore.
so, this means, in society, everything is based not on ideals anymore. it is based on what people deem "practical", tangible, the little issues instead of the big issues. consumerism, social standing, rising up in social esteem and such. even the "big goals" some people have are not ideal, but tangible: becoming famous, becoming rich. being a big light in the status quo - not striving for a different state of things, of society. not going for an ideal.
this change in society could not be expressed by many, because, as i said, they lost the knowledge and believe in ideals. they, in a sense, can not imagine that people, society was driven by ideals once or that it would be possible to be this way now. they think no other state than the now could exist.
there could be a lot more writting on this subject; it could fill books. but i will stop for now. maybe i can get back to it in other texts.
so what has changed?
in the 20th century, western society was an idealist society. well that is not quite true; it was already less idealist than the 19th century, or the middles ages, or the ancient societies, for that matter. but it was still somewhat idealistic. what does this mean? that means that life, the whole of existance, was, in the end, build around ideals. the ideal of society, of a greater good, a greater purpose, sense and meaning. the idea and ideal that society is there for the wellbeing of every individual; for the progress of mankind; that the goverment, the politicians are there for that. oh, that doesn't mean that this idealism was total; of course there were doubts; people who "know it better"; or disappointed people living on the fringe. but generally, this was the focal point of society, of life. people did not go to work merely for a paycheck; it gave them a deeper fulfillment to take a part in society, to do something for society, to be part of this "greater good". if course we know this was a lie to most part; politicians, the goverment, society, strove for power and did horrible things in that part, and never really *actually* did strife for the greater good. but the problem lies deeper. the idealism was not just attached to the status quo; when the hippies, the leftists, the worker organisations realised that the status quo did not further the ideal it was supposed to keep. by rebellion, strikes, uprising, resistance, they too fought for *ideals*, for a better world, a better society, utopia.
and this brings us to the problem of society nowadays. today, people are aware that the goverment, the politicians, are a lie. they know the big corporations operate on greed, not for a bigger good. but they do not fight this; they do not strive for an ideal or a different idea. because they got no ideals anymore. because the ideals are gone.
again i should add that i don't mean that old society or the "old values" were perfect; they were almost the opposite; but society was organized around ideals and this is important. and this is not the case. there are no ideals anymore. neither amongst the ruling or the middle class or the lower class or even the outcasts. everyone is just fighting for what he thinks is his "own good". they collect their paycheck, not to further mankind, but to waste it on consumer goods and such. who is still striving for an ideal? who is fighting for an ideal? anybody?
it should be noted that this problem runs much much deep than it seems. it is not that everyone had gone "egoistic" or "self-absorded". people have lost their contact to ideals. they do not even believe they exist anymore. *if* someone actually should fight for a better good, people do not think "what a fool, i better strive for self-gain". they think he is a fluke, a fake, a poser, who itself just pretends to go for a greater good, and has ultimately "self-gain" purposes too, such as fame and money or impressing people. they can not believe that someone could really use his energy on a greater good or an ideal. because they don't know what an ideal is anymore.
so, this means, in society, everything is based not on ideals anymore. it is based on what people deem "practical", tangible, the little issues instead of the big issues. consumerism, social standing, rising up in social esteem and such. even the "big goals" some people have are not ideal, but tangible: becoming famous, becoming rich. being a big light in the status quo - not striving for a different state of things, of society. not going for an ideal.
this change in society could not be expressed by many, because, as i said, they lost the knowledge and believe in ideals. they, in a sense, can not imagine that people, society was driven by ideals once or that it would be possible to be this way now. they think no other state than the now could exist.
there could be a lot more writting on this subject; it could fill books. but i will stop for now. maybe i can get back to it in other texts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)