there was one thing that made techno of the 90s interesting, and especially it's hardcore variant, and especially the sample-based digital hardcore / noizecore variant of it. this was that by sampling and other techniques, it was build on top of other genres, using their sounds, methods, and fusing them together, and building something that was above them - a higher level of sound. it was one of the first widespread meta-genres; the sonic exploration no longer took place within the confines of a single genre such as punkrock, reggae etc, but stacking whole genres together by using samples out of them. while producers before took care of elements of a genre - which chord to use, which notes, this was not so important to a techno producer; rather, which "genre" to use, to fuse together with the other elements of the track. producers use drums, baselines, guitars, chords; meta-producer produce their track out of genres.
there is a widespread feeling that culture, especially music, is stuck right now and has been for the last decade at least. it's not. culture is just slowly moving to the meta-genre i talked about.
on the sonic level, almost everything seems to be done already; disharmonic sounds, harmonic sounds, distortion, analogue stuff, accoustic guitars, noize, ambiance... so what is next? no longer caring about sounds on this level, or at least not putting the main focus on it, but to move to the next higher level, and no longer stack sounds together, but fuse and combine genres and create something new out of that.
i think it's unlikely that either something wholly new on the basic sonic level could be found, or that it is possible to produce music really in the old styles, and if it is possible, it should not be done, because that level should be left behind - it's time to go the higher level.
again, meta-music means that music is built out of existing music, creating something new by the combination of it and other things. like sound is the element of music, genres and existing concepts are the elements of meta-music.
obviously, this is going on for a while now, starting long before the turn of the millenium. you can see it in an egg-like state in rock genres now; rockbands now longer want to sound like ac/dc or hardrock only, or just like the pistols buzzcocks and punk; they fuse everything from funk reggae rap metal folk, anything that you can think of.
this meta-intention might be noble, but to me it's still lacking; there is too much of a focus on creating a seamless sound, meta-music should have some rough edges; with it's almost "mystical" sentimentality for old rock and rock'n'roll or CBGBs heroes, it's anti-intellectual, and meta-music has to be intellectual. and, above all, its products don't really sound so meta to me.
with a lot more focus on sampling and its issues, than there was in the 90s and 80s, it's not viable to really do "sampled-based" music anymore, at least not if you don't have permission for that. this is actually a hindrance to creating a higher level sound; but it's not something that would really stop it. focus not on literally sampling music or re-using notes and melodies, or rhythms, but on the concepts of music, of genres, of takes on sounds. like the emotionality of early punkrock. the "grooviness" of funk. the mindblowing effect of avantgarde music. by this, you can fuse new creations, higher level creation of sounds, without touching your samples at all.
it would be interesting where this leads in the future. maybe this meta-concept will fade away like so many cultural hopes. but i don't think music will be created on a "simple" level again; like a punkband writing just a punksong; or a techno act doing just a 90s techno track; these times are definately over.
there is a lot to be said, on how music on this higher, new level can be created; maybe in another text. but maybe it's better to be left in the open and for everyone to be found out by him or herself.
but the point remains; by putting together existing concepts, creating something new and building something on top of that, you can produce something really new.
The Dilemma Of Subcultures
"I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked, dragging themselves through the Negro streets at dawn looking for an angry fix". this statement still rings in our ears & is ever present. i too saw subcultures fall apart, and people going down with them. even if they started with a great idea, spirit, movement. there was one cause for this, that was a more important factor to this then most other. this is that the "system" - let's call it system for now - the hierarchy, society, this mainstream culture, has its very own immune system. there are always plenty of fuck-ups and creeps, in a negative way, that do not fit in to society. in fact it took me a long time to realize this; that not every outcast or outsider is this for noble reasons, but sometimes just because he is indeed more fucked up in a multitute of ways than "normal people" (who are, of course, already pretty fucked up). these people always run around and try to find some social circle and subculture that "accepts" them, lets them in, as they have nothing else they can cling to.
once they're in they're leeching off the creativity, enthusiasm, spontanity of the subculture and generate a negative mood and drag everything down. like a virus, this strain is eventually too much and the subculture breaks down, turns sour. once these creeps have established themselves, they will start to bully the original people out of the scene. also, some of the originators of the culture, who have some torn personality too, will realize that the creeps outnumber the creative people and if they support them, they will elevate them - as a DJ, artist, musician whatever - to their own stardom. so their support their agenda, turn their back on the creative people, and the scene gets torn.
just a short intermission - of course they're also wonderful "freaks" and outcasts and people who have a hard time to fit in - i'm not talking about these but their negative counterparts. those who cannot amount to contribute anything positive and just inject decay into interesting and noble goals, ideals - scenes.
one of the difference between these groups is that the "positive" people find their scene eventually, and contribute to it and stick with it. while the negative losers do not care what scene or culture or movement they join as they just want to leech creativity and have some false illusion of "fitting in" - if there is no hardcore scene in their town they will become goths for example, if there is no goth scene they turn punk, without any idea or commitment to these scenes really.
i should also add something about the bullying; for example a radical music scene starts with people who share a certain, futuristic mindset, criticize existing hierarchies, criticize ideas about morality, society, culture, nation, military, racism and such.
eventually the creeps will join the scene and they will bring their dumb and conservative ideas and spread racism and rightwing opinions, and in many ways bully those who are smarter then them.
the one issue i want to point out is that the creeps can, in a sense, only enter because the scenes are voluntary open to everyone and everything.
this was the one main flaw, of the punk scene, of the hippie scene, of the techno scene, of the hardcore scene; that everyone was allowed and even encouraged to join, so the people who were too dumb to fit in elsewhere joined quickly, and eventually the reactionaries, the bigots, the idiots and rightwing joined too; because after all, the dumb outnumber the smart by a million; so if everyone is free to enter a subculture, it will become a pit for dumbness.
it should be noted that in the past, in centures and millennia ago, art, wisdom, teaching, culture, was not "open to all"; it was circulated by restricted and sometimes secret circles; you needed initation and qualities to become part of these circles.
the early techno scenes were in some sense a revival of these secret societies; with their info about parties, locations, events only circulated to a select few - not to the masses!
if we want to see that art is not degraded more, and a renaissance of creativity and beauty, we need to get rid of the idea of "access for all"; there needs to be a kind of secret, initiated system again. this way, a stable and ongoing subculture, or better, movement can be created, and the short-livedness of these will be a thing of the past; and an amount of inspiration, beauty, brilliance, will fill these scenes.
but how should we go about this? this is indeed hard to tell. things like money ("you need to pay to get in") are a bad choice for this; this will only attract the rich creeps then and keep the creative poor out.
also, any fixed hierarchy could be a problem; as those are usually prone to get the worst creeps gaining a position at the top!
the early techno scene could maybe be an inspiration; it was not bound on money, and there were no "leaders" and such, still the content was not spread to the "masses"(at least not at first).
it should be noted that even small steps of restriction would already work wonders; if people would have to personally contact and convince people to be part of the secret society (a very "easy" step) this would already prevent most creeps from entering the scene.
another most important thing is that in these times of "social network" circulation, we need to learn the benefits of secrecy again; and if we use secrecy, in the way we do art and spread art, this could already be one of the biggest steps in the right direction.
the question on how to do these things remains open; but we will ponder on them.
once they're in they're leeching off the creativity, enthusiasm, spontanity of the subculture and generate a negative mood and drag everything down. like a virus, this strain is eventually too much and the subculture breaks down, turns sour. once these creeps have established themselves, they will start to bully the original people out of the scene. also, some of the originators of the culture, who have some torn personality too, will realize that the creeps outnumber the creative people and if they support them, they will elevate them - as a DJ, artist, musician whatever - to their own stardom. so their support their agenda, turn their back on the creative people, and the scene gets torn.
just a short intermission - of course they're also wonderful "freaks" and outcasts and people who have a hard time to fit in - i'm not talking about these but their negative counterparts. those who cannot amount to contribute anything positive and just inject decay into interesting and noble goals, ideals - scenes.
one of the difference between these groups is that the "positive" people find their scene eventually, and contribute to it and stick with it. while the negative losers do not care what scene or culture or movement they join as they just want to leech creativity and have some false illusion of "fitting in" - if there is no hardcore scene in their town they will become goths for example, if there is no goth scene they turn punk, without any idea or commitment to these scenes really.
i should also add something about the bullying; for example a radical music scene starts with people who share a certain, futuristic mindset, criticize existing hierarchies, criticize ideas about morality, society, culture, nation, military, racism and such.
eventually the creeps will join the scene and they will bring their dumb and conservative ideas and spread racism and rightwing opinions, and in many ways bully those who are smarter then them.
the one issue i want to point out is that the creeps can, in a sense, only enter because the scenes are voluntary open to everyone and everything.
this was the one main flaw, of the punk scene, of the hippie scene, of the techno scene, of the hardcore scene; that everyone was allowed and even encouraged to join, so the people who were too dumb to fit in elsewhere joined quickly, and eventually the reactionaries, the bigots, the idiots and rightwing joined too; because after all, the dumb outnumber the smart by a million; so if everyone is free to enter a subculture, it will become a pit for dumbness.
it should be noted that in the past, in centures and millennia ago, art, wisdom, teaching, culture, was not "open to all"; it was circulated by restricted and sometimes secret circles; you needed initation and qualities to become part of these circles.
the early techno scenes were in some sense a revival of these secret societies; with their info about parties, locations, events only circulated to a select few - not to the masses!
if we want to see that art is not degraded more, and a renaissance of creativity and beauty, we need to get rid of the idea of "access for all"; there needs to be a kind of secret, initiated system again. this way, a stable and ongoing subculture, or better, movement can be created, and the short-livedness of these will be a thing of the past; and an amount of inspiration, beauty, brilliance, will fill these scenes.
but how should we go about this? this is indeed hard to tell. things like money ("you need to pay to get in") are a bad choice for this; this will only attract the rich creeps then and keep the creative poor out.
also, any fixed hierarchy could be a problem; as those are usually prone to get the worst creeps gaining a position at the top!
the early techno scene could maybe be an inspiration; it was not bound on money, and there were no "leaders" and such, still the content was not spread to the "masses"(at least not at first).
it should be noted that even small steps of restriction would already work wonders; if people would have to personally contact and convince people to be part of the secret society (a very "easy" step) this would already prevent most creeps from entering the scene.
another most important thing is that in these times of "social network" circulation, we need to learn the benefits of secrecy again; and if we use secrecy, in the way we do art and spread art, this could already be one of the biggest steps in the right direction.
the question on how to do these things remains open; but we will ponder on them.
Bring Anarchism Back Into Hardcore
generally, there has been the tendency, that political, or rather, most in any way intellectual content, has been removed from music, from the various underground scenes. while this is claimed as being in the cause of "freeing" music of "ideology", in the end it only serves to turn music into a mere shallow, useless (capitalist) consumer good. something to "kick back to" after a "hard day's work". but music can have more meaning than that, it can make a difference, and it can make a change. it is very very much time to fuse music and subcultures with political, intellectual content, creativity, vision, purpose again.
for a free and boundless society! put anarchism back into hardcore techno.
tracklisting:
01. atari teenage riot - start the riot
02. atari teenage riot - into the death
03. s37 - streetfight
04. s37 - riot 1996
05. blunted vision - might cause a riot
06. ingler - riot
07. agro - bullen raus
08. dustor sheean - break out!
09. christoph de babalon - realistic riot ritual
10. dj scud & christoph fringeli - ruled by the mob
11. dj scud - mash the place up
12. scud & nomex - total destruction
13. society of unknowns - vector
14. ec8or - we are pissed
15. base force one - phuturist
16. metatron - men who hate the law
17. ec8or - we need a change
18. low entropy - anarchize (2015 remaster)
19. unknown source - a1
for a free and boundless society! put anarchism back into hardcore techno.
tracklisting:
01. atari teenage riot - start the riot
02. atari teenage riot - into the death
03. s37 - streetfight
04. s37 - riot 1996
05. blunted vision - might cause a riot
06. ingler - riot
07. agro - bullen raus
08. dustor sheean - break out!
09. christoph de babalon - realistic riot ritual
10. dj scud & christoph fringeli - ruled by the mob
11. dj scud - mash the place up
12. scud & nomex - total destruction
13. society of unknowns - vector
14. ec8or - we are pissed
15. base force one - phuturist
16. metatron - men who hate the law
17. ec8or - we need a change
18. low entropy - anarchize (2015 remaster)
19. unknown source - a1
Anti-Nazi Mix
No Fascist Europe - Anti-Nazi Mix
i had planned this mix already a few month ago and wrote the text below then. with the so-called "refugee crisis" that served as a scapegoat for an ever further mobilization of the extreme right as well as clearly showing the right wing attitudes amongst the middle class and the "center" of society, the fears i expressed have been surpassed by far by now. i can imagine that in a few month, weeks, these thoughts will too seem outdated with an even further gain of power by the right and the rightwing mindset. it's so very much necessary to take a stand now and say "no!".
the old text:
with the worrying tendency in europe, the rise of neofascist groups and movements, and a shift to the right and extreme right in public opinion, with the general population readily accepting fascist, nationalist and reactionary concepts and ideas again, it's time to take a stand. europe must not be allowed to fall prey to a fascist coup or restructuring. this dark night must not be allowed to be repeated. we will fight you, we will defend our rights and lifes and freedoms to our last. do you want to still have at least some degree of freedom and liberty in the next year, or live in a dictatorship or risk to be wiped out? we must not give way to these brutes. we must get up, and raise our voice.
Tracklisting:
01.Atari Teenage Riot - Hetzjagd Auf Nazis
02.Exit 100 - German Nazis Fuck Off
03.Nero - Youth Against Racism
04.DJ Freak - Anti Nazi Pack
05.Micropoint - Anti Nazi Vendetta
06.Chosen Few - Chosen Anthem (Against Racism)
07.Party Animals - Die Nazi Scum
08.Atari Teenage Riot - Hunt Down The Nazis
09.Alec Empire - You Must Confront
10.Nic Endo - Instant Balm #1
i had planned this mix already a few month ago and wrote the text below then. with the so-called "refugee crisis" that served as a scapegoat for an ever further mobilization of the extreme right as well as clearly showing the right wing attitudes amongst the middle class and the "center" of society, the fears i expressed have been surpassed by far by now. i can imagine that in a few month, weeks, these thoughts will too seem outdated with an even further gain of power by the right and the rightwing mindset. it's so very much necessary to take a stand now and say "no!".
the old text:
with the worrying tendency in europe, the rise of neofascist groups and movements, and a shift to the right and extreme right in public opinion, with the general population readily accepting fascist, nationalist and reactionary concepts and ideas again, it's time to take a stand. europe must not be allowed to fall prey to a fascist coup or restructuring. this dark night must not be allowed to be repeated. we will fight you, we will defend our rights and lifes and freedoms to our last. do you want to still have at least some degree of freedom and liberty in the next year, or live in a dictatorship or risk to be wiped out? we must not give way to these brutes. we must get up, and raise our voice.
Tracklisting:
01.Atari Teenage Riot - Hetzjagd Auf Nazis
02.Exit 100 - German Nazis Fuck Off
03.Nero - Youth Against Racism
04.DJ Freak - Anti Nazi Pack
05.Micropoint - Anti Nazi Vendetta
06.Chosen Few - Chosen Anthem (Against Racism)
07.Party Animals - Die Nazi Scum
08.Atari Teenage Riot - Hunt Down The Nazis
09.Alec Empire - You Must Confront
10.Nic Endo - Instant Balm #1
The Power Of Art
i so far have often claimed that art is more powerful than politics, or economics, or a political party, or billionaire CEOs. while some would agree with this claim, others would readily laugh at this thought. they would ask, how could art, just art, be of such power? it's art, on a medium, such as sound, images, video... nothing direct, nothing tangible - not a bomb or a gun not even a rock or a stone. how could it then - effect the "real" world?
i think this questions can only be approximatedely answered - at least by me, by now.
one thing i would like to say, that the matter is that art not so much changes the world by effecting the "real" world, but the world of thinking and thinking men.
but let us get to the point.
i can say two things:
first, man, is above all other things, rational and intellectual and capable of thinking and reflection.
second, thinking and reflection and intellectual thinking can be and can be used for more powerful things than almost any force in the world.
as for the second claim, it's obvious that man is in the superior position (just saying he is; not saying whether this is rightful) to any animal by the power of thinking and intelligence.
everything, good or bad, weak or powerful, in the end was created by man's mind; our architecture, our technology - our culture, space flights, internet, satellite communication.
the power of intellect enables man to solve the most complicated situations, and civilisation verily shows this.
no matter what the problem or issue is, to use one's intellectual cabalities will amost in any case lead to better results, than to rely on other abilities; let alone the things most people would associate the closest to the direct, real world, such as muscle power and strength.
the intellect is really something "abstract" compared to what people call real world things; but it is easily to see that it is more powerful than all these things.
the first claim is harder to proof; is man really intellectual, or not a creature driven by instincts and shades of ignorance? but we see, in history, that there always was a call and a move towards and an interest in all things intellectual and brilliant; let's face it; whole cosmologies were felled, not by armies, not by popes and kings, not by natural disasters, but by lone thinkers sitting in their rooms alone and spinning their theories, such as galileo, newton, darwin, and all the others (oh, even if you're critical of some of these thinkers; you can't deny the power they had over the world in the end originated by the power of thinking).
so there was always a call for intellect and thought in the history of humans.
but, how does this relate to art? because art, in it's core, in it's root, in it's very base and shape and foundation is something highly intellectual; smart; abstract; thoughtful; mindful; full of brilliance and creativity.
maybe the power of art rises from the very fact, that while common philosophy, thoughts, debates, are rooted in concepts that still are very much tangible and related to the real world (such as social debates etc.) while art in itself relies on abstract concepts and thought.
this is the power of art; maybe you will realize this power too.
this is why art can change the world. can change everything. and even can change - the life you live.
i think this questions can only be approximatedely answered - at least by me, by now.
one thing i would like to say, that the matter is that art not so much changes the world by effecting the "real" world, but the world of thinking and thinking men.
but let us get to the point.
i can say two things:
first, man, is above all other things, rational and intellectual and capable of thinking and reflection.
second, thinking and reflection and intellectual thinking can be and can be used for more powerful things than almost any force in the world.
as for the second claim, it's obvious that man is in the superior position (just saying he is; not saying whether this is rightful) to any animal by the power of thinking and intelligence.
everything, good or bad, weak or powerful, in the end was created by man's mind; our architecture, our technology - our culture, space flights, internet, satellite communication.
the power of intellect enables man to solve the most complicated situations, and civilisation verily shows this.
no matter what the problem or issue is, to use one's intellectual cabalities will amost in any case lead to better results, than to rely on other abilities; let alone the things most people would associate the closest to the direct, real world, such as muscle power and strength.
the intellect is really something "abstract" compared to what people call real world things; but it is easily to see that it is more powerful than all these things.
the first claim is harder to proof; is man really intellectual, or not a creature driven by instincts and shades of ignorance? but we see, in history, that there always was a call and a move towards and an interest in all things intellectual and brilliant; let's face it; whole cosmologies were felled, not by armies, not by popes and kings, not by natural disasters, but by lone thinkers sitting in their rooms alone and spinning their theories, such as galileo, newton, darwin, and all the others (oh, even if you're critical of some of these thinkers; you can't deny the power they had over the world in the end originated by the power of thinking).
so there was always a call for intellect and thought in the history of humans.
but, how does this relate to art? because art, in it's core, in it's root, in it's very base and shape and foundation is something highly intellectual; smart; abstract; thoughtful; mindful; full of brilliance and creativity.
maybe the power of art rises from the very fact, that while common philosophy, thoughts, debates, are rooted in concepts that still are very much tangible and related to the real world (such as social debates etc.) while art in itself relies on abstract concepts and thought.
this is the power of art; maybe you will realize this power too.
this is why art can change the world. can change everything. and even can change - the life you live.
Let Art Reign
in almost all cultures, except our current western one, art used to be a matter of utmost importance. imagine being a conductor of the king's ceremoy, or a religious one. doing your job badly might make you lose your head; or it might threaten the political and religious structure of the nation. compare this to the rather mild dangers our techno bedroom producers face, and their (seemingly) lack of power.
but art was not seen only as important and having amongst the highest power in society and elsewhere, it was also omnipresent. remember the saying: we need a society in which the artist is not a special type of person, but every person a special type of artist. this could be amended with: we need a world where doing art is not a special form of activity, but every activity is a special form of art. in the past and in other societies it is like that. it's no wonder we speak of the "art of cooking" or art of architecture, or artisans; in the past activities that are now considered to be quite general, "everyday" activities were considered to be an art unto themselves; only true masters - masters of their art - were considered to be genius cooks, builders, carpenters, and so on. this is most clearly seen at how artfully everyday items such as knifes, chairs, cups were designed in other or ancient cultures, compared to our industrial mass production of these things.
art is simply amongst the highest things possible. it is above politics, economics, cultures. it shapes society and the world and each persons life. it is the framework for all these things. it's again not accidentally that culture has a double meaning - one for created art in general, and one for the very totality of the social and political structure (as in such wordings as 'western culture', 'eastern culture').
this is most clearly seen in the effect art still has upon the world. rock'n'roll shaped society much deeper than any president, political party or political movement. the soviets realized in western pop lied more danger to their political structure then in most foreign spies, military men or hostile ministers.
yet contemporary culture is split about this issue. while the power of art is felt, it is publicly denied. when a politican would issue a call, that a famous rockstar is to become a member of the parliament with a high salary, everyone would laugh. it's just an artist after all! nothing too serious. yet a rockstar has a much direct and stronger influence on society than any politician; if he would issue a call to a social issue, like to donate money, support a political goal, or even take the fighting to the streets, masses of people would follow; while such a call from a political person would in most cases have almost zero effect these days.
it is what has broken so many artists by now; that on one side people realized that there art is the most important thing in the universe; yet at the same time it is seen as being "just art", "just music", nothing that matters too much in the end. the famous artist is pulled back and forth between these two viewpoints - a dilemma.
of course, even now, upcoming and starting artists, still have enough mind and wits, to realize that art is important, that art is amongst the most important things; much more important that other social or cultural or political issue. yet, the ignorance of the masses in this matter, is a force pulling them down again.
art is part of what i call the "higher layer"; the part of thought and reflection and pondering, that is already above mere societal theories and political structures; the root and base of worldviews, theories, philosophies, thinkers and insightful people.
so, the power of art still remains; the only thing missing is the conscious recognition of this power. but this can be regained. artists need to realize that they indeed play a high game, an important game, the highest game; that their work is more important than that of most people, especially than such people such as bankers, politicians, etc.
artist need to recognise that they have the power to change the world, and the power to change people's lifes - to the better.
let art reign.
but art was not seen only as important and having amongst the highest power in society and elsewhere, it was also omnipresent. remember the saying: we need a society in which the artist is not a special type of person, but every person a special type of artist. this could be amended with: we need a world where doing art is not a special form of activity, but every activity is a special form of art. in the past and in other societies it is like that. it's no wonder we speak of the "art of cooking" or art of architecture, or artisans; in the past activities that are now considered to be quite general, "everyday" activities were considered to be an art unto themselves; only true masters - masters of their art - were considered to be genius cooks, builders, carpenters, and so on. this is most clearly seen at how artfully everyday items such as knifes, chairs, cups were designed in other or ancient cultures, compared to our industrial mass production of these things.
art is simply amongst the highest things possible. it is above politics, economics, cultures. it shapes society and the world and each persons life. it is the framework for all these things. it's again not accidentally that culture has a double meaning - one for created art in general, and one for the very totality of the social and political structure (as in such wordings as 'western culture', 'eastern culture').
this is most clearly seen in the effect art still has upon the world. rock'n'roll shaped society much deeper than any president, political party or political movement. the soviets realized in western pop lied more danger to their political structure then in most foreign spies, military men or hostile ministers.
yet contemporary culture is split about this issue. while the power of art is felt, it is publicly denied. when a politican would issue a call, that a famous rockstar is to become a member of the parliament with a high salary, everyone would laugh. it's just an artist after all! nothing too serious. yet a rockstar has a much direct and stronger influence on society than any politician; if he would issue a call to a social issue, like to donate money, support a political goal, or even take the fighting to the streets, masses of people would follow; while such a call from a political person would in most cases have almost zero effect these days.
it is what has broken so many artists by now; that on one side people realized that there art is the most important thing in the universe; yet at the same time it is seen as being "just art", "just music", nothing that matters too much in the end. the famous artist is pulled back and forth between these two viewpoints - a dilemma.
of course, even now, upcoming and starting artists, still have enough mind and wits, to realize that art is important, that art is amongst the most important things; much more important that other social or cultural or political issue. yet, the ignorance of the masses in this matter, is a force pulling them down again.
art is part of what i call the "higher layer"; the part of thought and reflection and pondering, that is already above mere societal theories and political structures; the root and base of worldviews, theories, philosophies, thinkers and insightful people.
so, the power of art still remains; the only thing missing is the conscious recognition of this power. but this can be regained. artists need to realize that they indeed play a high game, an important game, the highest game; that their work is more important than that of most people, especially than such people such as bankers, politicians, etc.
artist need to recognise that they have the power to change the world, and the power to change people's lifes - to the better.
let art reign.
Metaphilosophy
i think in the 60s and in the 90s, and maybe also around the 20s, of the 20th century, there was a rare chance for society & humans in general, and that was the possibility of the creation of a metaphilosophy.
what is metaphilosophy? don't worry, i don't intend to create a new age "new thinking" type of foolishness, everything is based on the most rational of ways.
i like to explain this concept in 3 parts.
1. an extension (that is going upwards) of criticism. philosophy and debates are based and have an important base in criticism and analysis of things: but usually this criticism is bound by higher concepts. the question might be debated: how can the nationstate strengthened? can a criticism of the traditional family hinder or support the nationwide economy? and so on. the problem here is that there are these higher concepts that are kept intact. but generally, in philosophical evolution, these higher concepts slowly get criticised too: is it really right to subordinate everything under economy? do we really need a nationstate? could humans live without a government, or military, or war?
so over time, the criticism and analysis rises to a meta-level.
2. family, clan, tribe were already higher concepts over the savage life of past history. eventually these submerged into even higher concepts, such as nation, city, federal republic. same goes with rudimentary language, and symbolism, that evolved into delicate philosophical debate and advanced mathematics.
yet, it is possible, to go even higher. a bound that unites all humans would even be a higher state of organisation then the "USA" or a united europe. this would pose an advanced structure. same goes with a bound that involves all living things on earth. a point of thinking at which the hippies did arrive at in the 60s.
3. and most importantly: to not look at a specific philosophy; or even philosophy as a whole - in a singular, isolated way. to combine philosophy with art and music and politics and social structures for example. to combine worldviews of different cultures and nations. to mix this up with streetlife, rebellion, subcultures, traditions, or fine art. this is the very basis of metaphilosophy - and this what happened in the 60s.
obviously the "old guard" and common people are very opposed to these thoughts; they have a hard time grasping the existing and simple philosophies already - but that would not be a reason to stop.
now a lot of these thoughts have been abandoned - people cringe at the idea that music and politics could form a lasting union again, or to mix philosophy with "lower" issues or issues foreign to it would be nonsense to most people.
the rise of esoteric and "new age" worldviews after 2000 might be a good example for this; the hippies often had some 'esoteric' ideas too, but they took what they liked and were more interest how the thoughts of foreign cultures could mix up with modern "psychology", philosophy, or even science - often in a rational way that discarced "supernatural" notions of these ancient ideas.
in fact timothy leary complained in some of his 70s books that the hippies suddenly took a turn backwards, to "traditional buddhism" and similiar concepts, and also to a rural, simple lifestyle instead of moving on and shaping the future.
which can be seen in similiar tendencies today.
in the 90s, this metaphilosophy might be harder to be spotted, but it is clearly seen in the music of the 90s, the techno and hardcore and breakcore, where concepts from almost every existing music were taken and "sampled" and woven together to create something new and abstract and intellectual.
the cyberpunk and cyberspace movements in the 90s had similiar aims; cyberspace more or less *is* metaphilosophy - a "meta" space (in snow crash, the cyberspace is called metaverse, not the term used gibson, "matrix").
also this type of meta-thinking was seen in the books by such thinkers as bey, zerzan, in the 90s.
now the thing is, seemingly a lot of this stuff is still, or again going on. rockbands hardly limit themselves to a singular style such as "hair metal" anymore but infuse anything from zeppelin to beatles and tangerine dream, same goes for the electric genres.
yet there is something missing, that blocks the creation of a true metaphilosophy. most importantly, a rampant anti-intellectualism. for example, a band might fuse punk, rock'n'roll-kitsch and 50s b-movie imagery - but not by an intellectual critique, but some kind of "mystic", emotional clinging to these things - ultimately an anti-rational motion (same goes for artists that fuse funk and hiphop and house and such things).
surprisingly, the second explanation is that this showcases there is actually a lot going on that would lead to a metaphilosophy - both tendencies exist at the same time.
the ultimate factor for steering clear of pitfalls and failure regarding these things is - that everything has to be based deeply in rationality and intellectuality.
it might very much that the conditions are right again for these kind of things to happen - maybe in the 20s of the 21th century? but regardless of the social conditions, these things are reachable for the single individual in and at all times, of course.
what is metaphilosophy? don't worry, i don't intend to create a new age "new thinking" type of foolishness, everything is based on the most rational of ways.
i like to explain this concept in 3 parts.
1. an extension (that is going upwards) of criticism. philosophy and debates are based and have an important base in criticism and analysis of things: but usually this criticism is bound by higher concepts. the question might be debated: how can the nationstate strengthened? can a criticism of the traditional family hinder or support the nationwide economy? and so on. the problem here is that there are these higher concepts that are kept intact. but generally, in philosophical evolution, these higher concepts slowly get criticised too: is it really right to subordinate everything under economy? do we really need a nationstate? could humans live without a government, or military, or war?
so over time, the criticism and analysis rises to a meta-level.
2. family, clan, tribe were already higher concepts over the savage life of past history. eventually these submerged into even higher concepts, such as nation, city, federal republic. same goes with rudimentary language, and symbolism, that evolved into delicate philosophical debate and advanced mathematics.
yet, it is possible, to go even higher. a bound that unites all humans would even be a higher state of organisation then the "USA" or a united europe. this would pose an advanced structure. same goes with a bound that involves all living things on earth. a point of thinking at which the hippies did arrive at in the 60s.
3. and most importantly: to not look at a specific philosophy; or even philosophy as a whole - in a singular, isolated way. to combine philosophy with art and music and politics and social structures for example. to combine worldviews of different cultures and nations. to mix this up with streetlife, rebellion, subcultures, traditions, or fine art. this is the very basis of metaphilosophy - and this what happened in the 60s.
obviously the "old guard" and common people are very opposed to these thoughts; they have a hard time grasping the existing and simple philosophies already - but that would not be a reason to stop.
now a lot of these thoughts have been abandoned - people cringe at the idea that music and politics could form a lasting union again, or to mix philosophy with "lower" issues or issues foreign to it would be nonsense to most people.
the rise of esoteric and "new age" worldviews after 2000 might be a good example for this; the hippies often had some 'esoteric' ideas too, but they took what they liked and were more interest how the thoughts of foreign cultures could mix up with modern "psychology", philosophy, or even science - often in a rational way that discarced "supernatural" notions of these ancient ideas.
in fact timothy leary complained in some of his 70s books that the hippies suddenly took a turn backwards, to "traditional buddhism" and similiar concepts, and also to a rural, simple lifestyle instead of moving on and shaping the future.
which can be seen in similiar tendencies today.
in the 90s, this metaphilosophy might be harder to be spotted, but it is clearly seen in the music of the 90s, the techno and hardcore and breakcore, where concepts from almost every existing music were taken and "sampled" and woven together to create something new and abstract and intellectual.
the cyberpunk and cyberspace movements in the 90s had similiar aims; cyberspace more or less *is* metaphilosophy - a "meta" space (in snow crash, the cyberspace is called metaverse, not the term used gibson, "matrix").
also this type of meta-thinking was seen in the books by such thinkers as bey, zerzan, in the 90s.
now the thing is, seemingly a lot of this stuff is still, or again going on. rockbands hardly limit themselves to a singular style such as "hair metal" anymore but infuse anything from zeppelin to beatles and tangerine dream, same goes for the electric genres.
yet there is something missing, that blocks the creation of a true metaphilosophy. most importantly, a rampant anti-intellectualism. for example, a band might fuse punk, rock'n'roll-kitsch and 50s b-movie imagery - but not by an intellectual critique, but some kind of "mystic", emotional clinging to these things - ultimately an anti-rational motion (same goes for artists that fuse funk and hiphop and house and such things).
surprisingly, the second explanation is that this showcases there is actually a lot going on that would lead to a metaphilosophy - both tendencies exist at the same time.
the ultimate factor for steering clear of pitfalls and failure regarding these things is - that everything has to be based deeply in rationality and intellectuality.
it might very much that the conditions are right again for these kind of things to happen - maybe in the 20s of the 21th century? but regardless of the social conditions, these things are reachable for the single individual in and at all times, of course.
The Higher Layer
most people's life revolves completely about direct, tangible things. their work, their family, their house, their city, their district, etc.
yet there is also a higher layer, the layer of politics and economics, that is above this, and in the end complete decides and influences their "everyday" experiences; politicians, big corporations, national economies, conflicts, wars, multinational trade agreements. these effect work, city, house & home and can make people lose their jobs or their money or their till-then way of life.
now, in the past, both the more "advanced" thinkers of the right and left claimed there is an even higher level: the social classes for example; the bourgeoisie of seemingly hostile nations will stick together to fight a threat by a possible takeover led by the lower classes; the national politics are defined by higher economical issues that are above the national level; and so on. while the right would claim that there is a general leftwing / communist threat not bound to any nation or politician.
but, there is an even higher layer. this is the layer of art, of music, of language, symbols, philosophy, and everything related to it and so much more.
of course, to the everyday citizen, this will be completely absurd. most people find it hard to realize art and music could be more important than work and family (as most teenagers in a conflict with their parents will find out) - to believe art could be more important and powerful than the goverment is insanity to them.
but yet - think of it. it is true. elvis presley's music had a bigger impact and did a deeper change to western and general society than any single US president in the 20th century. british citizen at first were more shocked by punkrock then by the threat of a soviet war.
this is because in this layer lies the actual power. a change of art in society can change its politics, its structures, its modus, and then by this how everyday life is lived and its conditions.
now, the very everyday citizens will dismiss this claim. but it shows they're hypocritical and contradictionary about it. if rock'n'roll was just meaningless rubbish, auditive waste - why were they so afraid it, why did they fight it so heavily? if it was of less importance - they could've just ignored it. same could be said for any new art movement that was introduced in the last centuries, or even fashion - also subcultures, new modes of language, of symbolism, such as in rap or graffiti culture (although for today's kids it might be hard to realize how deeply their parents' parent generation was scared by these things).
the introduction of a new, brilliant art form was almost immediately met by panic and outrage of politicians and conservatives of any camp. this is a testament to the power of art.
why is this this way? i'll give an attempt at an explanation - that is hardly complete or objective. politics is not just politics or economics; they're based on philosophies, on a thesis, on concepts, thought out structures, an analysis. and this is where we reach the realm of - philosophy, and symbols, and language, from which these concepts and programmes are created and taken. thus, language, philosophy and symbolism is the very basis, the root, the creating power of political programmes and economical strategies, which are then employed by politicans and CEOs and effect the workplace and everyday life. art and music is the other side of the coin of philosophy - not visibly seen as "philosophy" or reflected thinking by many, but also based on thoughts, concepts, ideas, creative, conceptualism. art is connected to symbolism and logic and language.
most people do not even look at political philosophy or likewise things when considering their dire everyday life and work situation anymore. even harder would it be to them to look up further and see that art and language towers above all this.
yet, art and music and language have this power; even if it was forgotten it can be resurrected; and we as artists should have good intentions to better the world and give people something to hope & inspire for, and should use art and other forms to achieve this.
yet there is also a higher layer, the layer of politics and economics, that is above this, and in the end complete decides and influences their "everyday" experiences; politicians, big corporations, national economies, conflicts, wars, multinational trade agreements. these effect work, city, house & home and can make people lose their jobs or their money or their till-then way of life.
now, in the past, both the more "advanced" thinkers of the right and left claimed there is an even higher level: the social classes for example; the bourgeoisie of seemingly hostile nations will stick together to fight a threat by a possible takeover led by the lower classes; the national politics are defined by higher economical issues that are above the national level; and so on. while the right would claim that there is a general leftwing / communist threat not bound to any nation or politician.
but, there is an even higher layer. this is the layer of art, of music, of language, symbols, philosophy, and everything related to it and so much more.
of course, to the everyday citizen, this will be completely absurd. most people find it hard to realize art and music could be more important than work and family (as most teenagers in a conflict with their parents will find out) - to believe art could be more important and powerful than the goverment is insanity to them.
but yet - think of it. it is true. elvis presley's music had a bigger impact and did a deeper change to western and general society than any single US president in the 20th century. british citizen at first were more shocked by punkrock then by the threat of a soviet war.
this is because in this layer lies the actual power. a change of art in society can change its politics, its structures, its modus, and then by this how everyday life is lived and its conditions.
now, the very everyday citizens will dismiss this claim. but it shows they're hypocritical and contradictionary about it. if rock'n'roll was just meaningless rubbish, auditive waste - why were they so afraid it, why did they fight it so heavily? if it was of less importance - they could've just ignored it. same could be said for any new art movement that was introduced in the last centuries, or even fashion - also subcultures, new modes of language, of symbolism, such as in rap or graffiti culture (although for today's kids it might be hard to realize how deeply their parents' parent generation was scared by these things).
the introduction of a new, brilliant art form was almost immediately met by panic and outrage of politicians and conservatives of any camp. this is a testament to the power of art.
why is this this way? i'll give an attempt at an explanation - that is hardly complete or objective. politics is not just politics or economics; they're based on philosophies, on a thesis, on concepts, thought out structures, an analysis. and this is where we reach the realm of - philosophy, and symbols, and language, from which these concepts and programmes are created and taken. thus, language, philosophy and symbolism is the very basis, the root, the creating power of political programmes and economical strategies, which are then employed by politicans and CEOs and effect the workplace and everyday life. art and music is the other side of the coin of philosophy - not visibly seen as "philosophy" or reflected thinking by many, but also based on thoughts, concepts, ideas, creative, conceptualism. art is connected to symbolism and logic and language.
most people do not even look at political philosophy or likewise things when considering their dire everyday life and work situation anymore. even harder would it be to them to look up further and see that art and language towers above all this.
yet, art and music and language have this power; even if it was forgotten it can be resurrected; and we as artists should have good intentions to better the world and give people something to hope & inspire for, and should use art and other forms to achieve this.
Hardcore, Hardtrance and Politics
almost anything, any type of music of the 90s is being revamped now. there are bands that sound like smashing pumpkins again, like soundgarden, even like eurohouse, or 90s "american" soul. in the dance and electronic scene there is a lot of this "retro" activity again. yet, there is a huge blind spot, that most people do not even realise. there is no return to mid 90s hardtrance, as in the production of jam&spoon (gotta say yes) or sunbeam. there is no return to experimental hardcore, like fischkopf or anticore records. and there is not much of a return to early 90s 'hardcore' "techno / house".[1]
what is even more bizarre is, that this fact is even logical to many people. it makes sense to them, that eurodance cheesiness is resurrected, or techno methods and beats are used; but that oldschool hardtrance production are not brought back to life is obvious to them.
to see why this is the case, i should mention how i've seen these things, as i lived to them. i missed the period of 1990s hard techno, as i was too young to join a subculture then (i.e. didn't have the chance / connection). i experienced the hardtrance rave boom that took all of germany and half of europe. for me, the music was the solution; an artistic solution on how music, art should be created; a final point, a step to perfection, the music i wanted and loved and that made me happy and content.
then i slipped into the experimental hardcore scene and rejected the dying trance-rave scene for it's "cheesy" emotions and commercialism. now, this was also a version of artistic vision & brilliance to me; a solution; but also, a political and cultural solution and answer and way and revolution (as it was very politically and culturally charged then).
yet i turned my back completely on them after the 2000s.
this was because i formerly felt that this music was the right way; but came to the "enlightment" that i must be wrong.
this was part of what i call the "new dilemma". you meet this dilemma when you talk anarchist politics for example. people will tell you: "you think the goverment is evil, and a free society could be constructed". "but, obviously, this thought is wrong". why is this so obvious? what makes it wrong? the fact is, it is not wrong. the goverment can be overcome, or any other authority. we can create a free society. within our lifetime.
why *should* it not be that way? what should prevent this from happening? the thing is, that the debate with these people takes not part on a rational level. they act out of a *feeling* of helplessness in the face of oppression, some supposed archaic knowledge that the world always has to be shitty. but it doesn't. this is not part of a rational debate.
so, the same thing was with oldschool hardtrance and experimental hardcore. "of course, we couldn't be right". "out of all music scenes and producers and cultures and social groups, it would be very likely that we had the solution to the artists' dilemma, the lack of vision, and the various problems associated and not associated with it". but maybe, just maybe, we were right. maybe we had it. maybe we were on the right, perfect way.
and i intend to go back to this sound, and find out.
footnote 1: i should add, that at the date i am writing this, there is a slow, almost invisible return to this style going on already; but it will be seen wether this grows further; i dearly hope so.
what is even more bizarre is, that this fact is even logical to many people. it makes sense to them, that eurodance cheesiness is resurrected, or techno methods and beats are used; but that oldschool hardtrance production are not brought back to life is obvious to them.
to see why this is the case, i should mention how i've seen these things, as i lived to them. i missed the period of 1990s hard techno, as i was too young to join a subculture then (i.e. didn't have the chance / connection). i experienced the hardtrance rave boom that took all of germany and half of europe. for me, the music was the solution; an artistic solution on how music, art should be created; a final point, a step to perfection, the music i wanted and loved and that made me happy and content.
then i slipped into the experimental hardcore scene and rejected the dying trance-rave scene for it's "cheesy" emotions and commercialism. now, this was also a version of artistic vision & brilliance to me; a solution; but also, a political and cultural solution and answer and way and revolution (as it was very politically and culturally charged then).
yet i turned my back completely on them after the 2000s.
this was because i formerly felt that this music was the right way; but came to the "enlightment" that i must be wrong.
this was part of what i call the "new dilemma". you meet this dilemma when you talk anarchist politics for example. people will tell you: "you think the goverment is evil, and a free society could be constructed". "but, obviously, this thought is wrong". why is this so obvious? what makes it wrong? the fact is, it is not wrong. the goverment can be overcome, or any other authority. we can create a free society. within our lifetime.
why *should* it not be that way? what should prevent this from happening? the thing is, that the debate with these people takes not part on a rational level. they act out of a *feeling* of helplessness in the face of oppression, some supposed archaic knowledge that the world always has to be shitty. but it doesn't. this is not part of a rational debate.
so, the same thing was with oldschool hardtrance and experimental hardcore. "of course, we couldn't be right". "out of all music scenes and producers and cultures and social groups, it would be very likely that we had the solution to the artists' dilemma, the lack of vision, and the various problems associated and not associated with it". but maybe, just maybe, we were right. maybe we had it. maybe we were on the right, perfect way.
and i intend to go back to this sound, and find out.
footnote 1: i should add, that at the date i am writing this, there is a slow, almost invisible return to this style going on already; but it will be seen wether this grows further; i dearly hope so.
How Music Has Become Meaningless - Addendum
i should explain where i am getting at: that music is made, produced, and bought for "personal pleasure" or as a "personal hobby" is a historical anomaly. music was always tied in to societal, political or cosmological structures. made for royal ceremonies or religious events. even in the 19th century, when the power of pope and king had waned, there was a consensus that art should not be created for its own sake, but for the betterment of mankind and society. even in the 20th century, in the soviet union, art was not seen as a personal but a political thing, and "unpolitical" music like rock'n'roll music was banned for this very reason. (of course it was wrong they banned it - but it shows that music was understood political back then - even if the soviets were in the wrong and acted wrong in this matter).
that music is a hobby or a "simple leisure" in todays society, is something bizarre and basically wholly new in the last 5000 years. art was always seen as something with a higher purpose, a higher goal, that was far beyond "everyday experience" or a hobby, as it is now.
sure, in tribal societies, or medieval times, there were also all-out parties were people got drugged to oblivion and danced till they dropped - but even those were usually societal or religious in nature - not just "pleasure for everyday's sake".
that music is a hobby or a "simple leisure" in todays society, is something bizarre and basically wholly new in the last 5000 years. art was always seen as something with a higher purpose, a higher goal, that was far beyond "everyday experience" or a hobby, as it is now.
sure, in tribal societies, or medieval times, there were also all-out parties were people got drugged to oblivion and danced till they dropped - but even those were usually societal or religious in nature - not just "pleasure for everyday's sake".
How Music Has Become Meaningless
there has been a lot of talk that contemporary music, and its associated scenes, are kinda shallow, superficial, devoid of meaning. while others dismiss this is purely subjective opinions. what people rarely realize is that music has become meaningless in the most literal of senses.
let's take a look at the past; people in the 60s believed that their music would lead to a revolution, to a whole new society, to a whole new world; that it would be able to sweep away all old structures and the negativity enforced by them. punks believed their music would enable them to beat society, to break all rules - and get away with this, win with it.
does todays music still have these powers? does anybody believe that music still could have these powers?
does someone who electronically buys a minimal techno track, believe he could cause a political, social or cultural uprising, a change by this? no.
so music has really no meaning anymore. it's just a good for consumption; restricted to leisure; to get the shallow, limited, cut down joy that capitalism allows its slaves to have for a few minutes between working and sleeping.
the ironic thing is that the last trace of meaning today is found in the megapop productions of the big corporations. because the teenagers still believe their stars are something special, and would lead them to a wonderful escape from everyday life. of course this is nothing to build on; it's just a last refuge; and of course based on lies; but, as it is the usual matter with belief, it's still better to believe in something wrong, then to not believe in anything at all.
but let's leave this pop business behind. music has to have a meaning outside of itself - outside of the track, song itself - to be meaningful. music that is just for leisure time or consumption doesn't do the trick. there has to be a political, cultural content, movement, struggle, party, organisation associated with a certain music to elevate it from the boring rubble of mass content. structures have to be created, leaflets printed, things shouted down the street. music, left to itself - just an isolated song, or track - is an impossibility. it has to be part of a bigger plan, scheme.
and this is still possible. music has the power to change the world. music has the power to change your life; to something wonderful, to something special; to lead you out of oppression or the banality of everyday life. to lead you to adventure, to lead you to excitement.
let's not get stuck with mere political goals. any concept, structure, organisation, that can be tied to music, that brings the unknown, the daring, the amazing to people's life is worth supporting. there is nothing wrong with gaining pleasure by music; just the consumer society non-pleasurable banal "joy" that is associated with common music, is the problem; you can reach pure, true ecstatic pleasure by music, so don't bother with less.
the possibilites are still there. we just have to realize them, and utilize them.
let's take a look at the past; people in the 60s believed that their music would lead to a revolution, to a whole new society, to a whole new world; that it would be able to sweep away all old structures and the negativity enforced by them. punks believed their music would enable them to beat society, to break all rules - and get away with this, win with it.
does todays music still have these powers? does anybody believe that music still could have these powers?
does someone who electronically buys a minimal techno track, believe he could cause a political, social or cultural uprising, a change by this? no.
so music has really no meaning anymore. it's just a good for consumption; restricted to leisure; to get the shallow, limited, cut down joy that capitalism allows its slaves to have for a few minutes between working and sleeping.
the ironic thing is that the last trace of meaning today is found in the megapop productions of the big corporations. because the teenagers still believe their stars are something special, and would lead them to a wonderful escape from everyday life. of course this is nothing to build on; it's just a last refuge; and of course based on lies; but, as it is the usual matter with belief, it's still better to believe in something wrong, then to not believe in anything at all.
but let's leave this pop business behind. music has to have a meaning outside of itself - outside of the track, song itself - to be meaningful. music that is just for leisure time or consumption doesn't do the trick. there has to be a political, cultural content, movement, struggle, party, organisation associated with a certain music to elevate it from the boring rubble of mass content. structures have to be created, leaflets printed, things shouted down the street. music, left to itself - just an isolated song, or track - is an impossibility. it has to be part of a bigger plan, scheme.
and this is still possible. music has the power to change the world. music has the power to change your life; to something wonderful, to something special; to lead you out of oppression or the banality of everyday life. to lead you to adventure, to lead you to excitement.
let's not get stuck with mere political goals. any concept, structure, organisation, that can be tied to music, that brings the unknown, the daring, the amazing to people's life is worth supporting. there is nothing wrong with gaining pleasure by music; just the consumer society non-pleasurable banal "joy" that is associated with common music, is the problem; you can reach pure, true ecstatic pleasure by music, so don't bother with less.
the possibilites are still there. we just have to realize them, and utilize them.
Comicreview: Les Cités obscures / Die geheimnisvollen Städte
in keinem anderem medium ist der anti-moderne impuls so deutlich sichtbar wie momentan in den comicwelten. ganze nicht-moderne epochen werden in abenteuern wiedererweckt; das alte ägypten, rom, die azteken, wikinger, das mittelalter. während dies, auch in comics die man eher "pulp abenteuern" zuordnen würde, auf sehr clevere und durchdachte weise geschieht, fehlt doch eine wirklich *intellektuelle* beschäftigung mit der moderne und der anti-modernen strömung, die sich aufmacht, die moderne von ihrem sockel zu stossen. diese intellektuelle beschäftigung findet man aber bei einer serie, die schon viel früher entstanden ist, in einer zeit als die moderne zwar schon alle möglichkeiten und energie verspielt hatte, dass den meisten aber noch lange nicht bewusst war, so um anfang der achtziger herum. Les Cités obscures, oder der etwas merkwürdige titel "Die geheimnisvollen Städte". in den ersten bänden findet man vor allem einen großen einfluss postmoderner gedanken; so wird im ersten band, der umgeschrieben werde musste weil er scheints zu unverständlich war, das "simulacrum" verflucht und der protagonist versucht dem zeitalter der repräsentation zu entkommen (ob er erfolg hat, wird hier nicht verraten).
andere protagonisten finden sich auf einmal in medialen bildern wieder, die die europäische geschichte ad infinitum wiederholen. dass die erschaffer der comics sich und ihre fangruppe als obskuranten bezeichnen, und sich damit explizit auf die gewichtigen anfänglichen gegner der aufklärung und der moderne beziehen, lässt ahnen, das die moderne kritik etwas mehr tiefe hat als der sonstige "postmoderne" schwachsinn. während sich die ersten bände oft in einer allgemeinen sinnlosigkeit und konfusion auflösen, werden in späteren bändern durchaus lösungsansätze und gedanken zum modernen dilemma formuliert, und echte, interessante nicht-moderne gedanken und konzepte entworfen, was insofern besonders lobenswert ist, da dies ja den meisten menschen, die in die moderne geboren wurden, bis zu ihrem lebensende im normalfall nicht möglich ist. vielleicht kann man diese entwicklung über mehrere jahrzehnte so sehen, dass zeitgleich in der realen welt der ausbruch aus der modernen welt auch immer mehr eine reale möglichkeit wurde, und sich dies im werdegang der comicwelten wiederspiegelt.
fast schon gegensätzlich, aber sinnvoll, ist das andererseits in den comics ein wahrer fetischismus der moderne betrieben wird, und zwar der hochzeit der moderne im 19ten und anfang des 20ten jahrhunderts; es wimmelt nur so von altmodischen wissenschaftlern, politikern, den merkwürdigsten wissenschaftlichen und industriellen erfindungen (nahe am steampunk), die aber immer wieder in konflikt mit anderen konzepten geraten.
einen klaren, eindeutig begehbaren nicht-modernen weg, oder gar eine "lösung", bieten die comics selbstverständlich auch nicht, wobei die frage wäre, ob dies überhaupt möglich oder wünschenswert sei. für meinen geschmack ist die ausgebarbeite anti-moderne ideologie auch eben zuviel mit postmodernen konzepten verzwirbelt, vorallem dem nervigen credo das man die jetzige gesellschaft, die doch zu den altlasten der moderne gehört, doch nicht so einfach überwinden kann. ich will den autoren auch gar nicht unterstellen, dass sie irgendein konkretes ziel haben, ausser sich in gedankenspielen zu ergehen oder eben "post"moderne gedanken einfach mal in comicform zu verarbeiten, anstatt eine aufwendige focaultkritik zu schreiben z.B.
trotzdem sind in diesen büchern einige sehr interessante gedanken enthalten, die, soweit ich das beurteilen, *wirklich* nicht-modern sind, und abgesehen davon, werden einfach interessante geschichten erzählt die sich in sehr interessanten fantasiewelten entfalten.
Thesis: Inner Circle
there has been some talk, about how the fact that anyone now can easily produce and distribute music, has brought its own problems with it; a flooding of newly released music; a decline in quality.
but what is rarely debated, is, that it is also a problem, that anyone nowadays can listen to every music he wants too.
this was very different in the past. industrial, punkrock, even metal, or goth, and other experimental and interesting subcultures, were based on close-knit, social groupings and structures; sure, everyone knew the sex pistols, or the cure, or iron maiden; but to be really in the know about what was going on in the punk scene, or the industrial world, you had to be an insider; a part of the circle; of this "secret society"; because that's were the information was shared, and the titles of the important tracks was mentioned.
this led to a huge amount of "quality control"; not everyone was admitted to this circle, and when you 'misbehaved', you risked being run out of it. that musical taste was based on a social setting in itself was already a merit, and it brought other pros with it. politics were closely associated with music; reactionaries probably would have had a hard time trying to get into the hippie groupings of the 60s; while nowadays even rightwing people often listen to the 60s rockbands; when they would have risked getting their teeth punched out when they went to a social happening of this music in the 60s - possibly.
that you were part of a group meant - you met girls. while nowadays, having an - really - obscure music taste hardly (or rarely) gives you an advantage with the gender you're interested it.
the thing is, there is a reason most people listen to dumb pop music. interesting, creative, daring music has no place amongst the "masses". you wouldn't say that a scientific theory has its merits only when it is based on approval by general populance, would you? the general population did not understan einstein's theories when he formulated them - and the general populance cannot understand truly daring, groundbreaking art. it never did - cue all the artists who are now legends but were unknown during their lifetimes.
art is too precious, too special, too important, to let it be handled by - general society. it belongs to the artists, who really know what they're doing and can understand it.
now the interesting thing is. that art is bound to obscure, small circles is a fact. and the developements of the past years did not, and could not, change this. we now have an onslaught of social networks, streaming sites etc. that seemingly make art available to everyone. but behind this, outside of this, the real interesting stuff is still shared - by these informal circles. oh no i don't talk about underground "piracy" sites. i mean legal stuff.
for example, almost every artist, unknown or superstar, has a number of unreleased or other private tracks that he just shared with his close friends. but even with released stuff - released stuff that remained lesser known - the information of it is often shared by these social circlcs. when a truly interesting release is made, the word is spread from friend to friend and travels through the interconnected social threads.
often - generally? - you get to know more good stuff by recommendations of your circle of friends, then all the social and streaming sites. or rather - you get a lot of stuff by these channels - but the exquisite, outstanding stuff, comes through these personal ties.
these circles are in many ways similiar, but also different from past circles. they're often completely informal. they're literally just your "circle of friends", or in artist cases - your circle of artist friends.
this is a plus, because the informal nature means that popular culture, the streaming sites, the social networks, can't really tie into this. if your friend suddenly starts spamming your favorite recommandations, or invites bullshit people to your party by posting it to the larger social networks; you just stop sharing this stuff with him.
but i think we need to move. we can take on more. the more "formal" circles had its plusses too. it was good you had a punkclub where you could meet likeminded people, or an industrial anti-fanzine to get to know more music - and political theories.
i have two ideas: first, really create circles, in which some music is shared *only*. for example, as a producer, while still doing regular releases, to produce every now and then some killer and exquisite tracks only for that circle.
if this secret circle has a large number of members and artists, an interesting outcome can be had, and a community created.
it should be noted, that it's best that no outsider knows this circle or this music exists, or has ever existed.
it's also a plus when political and social theories are circulated in this grouping then.
maybe it would be possible to make the existance and the name of the circle public, but not letting everyone in - but that would be risky, and could lead to failure.
the second idea, to find another way to limit the amount of people that can access the art of a given artist. that you have to pay for some releases is a step in this direction, and maybe the price should be set higher - you would have exclusive art if you pay 10 euro for a single track, right?
but it would be awkward and extremely negative that of all things, money, this capitalist bastard, would be the measure of who can access art and who not.
but i am sure other barriers of accessibility could be found for art.
there is a lot to be done, and a lot to be achieved. but regardless of wether one succeeds with these concepts; art will still be for special circles.
but what is rarely debated, is, that it is also a problem, that anyone nowadays can listen to every music he wants too.
this was very different in the past. industrial, punkrock, even metal, or goth, and other experimental and interesting subcultures, were based on close-knit, social groupings and structures; sure, everyone knew the sex pistols, or the cure, or iron maiden; but to be really in the know about what was going on in the punk scene, or the industrial world, you had to be an insider; a part of the circle; of this "secret society"; because that's were the information was shared, and the titles of the important tracks was mentioned.
this led to a huge amount of "quality control"; not everyone was admitted to this circle, and when you 'misbehaved', you risked being run out of it. that musical taste was based on a social setting in itself was already a merit, and it brought other pros with it. politics were closely associated with music; reactionaries probably would have had a hard time trying to get into the hippie groupings of the 60s; while nowadays even rightwing people often listen to the 60s rockbands; when they would have risked getting their teeth punched out when they went to a social happening of this music in the 60s - possibly.
that you were part of a group meant - you met girls. while nowadays, having an - really - obscure music taste hardly (or rarely) gives you an advantage with the gender you're interested it.
the thing is, there is a reason most people listen to dumb pop music. interesting, creative, daring music has no place amongst the "masses". you wouldn't say that a scientific theory has its merits only when it is based on approval by general populance, would you? the general population did not understan einstein's theories when he formulated them - and the general populance cannot understand truly daring, groundbreaking art. it never did - cue all the artists who are now legends but were unknown during their lifetimes.
art is too precious, too special, too important, to let it be handled by - general society. it belongs to the artists, who really know what they're doing and can understand it.
now the interesting thing is. that art is bound to obscure, small circles is a fact. and the developements of the past years did not, and could not, change this. we now have an onslaught of social networks, streaming sites etc. that seemingly make art available to everyone. but behind this, outside of this, the real interesting stuff is still shared - by these informal circles. oh no i don't talk about underground "piracy" sites. i mean legal stuff.
for example, almost every artist, unknown or superstar, has a number of unreleased or other private tracks that he just shared with his close friends. but even with released stuff - released stuff that remained lesser known - the information of it is often shared by these social circlcs. when a truly interesting release is made, the word is spread from friend to friend and travels through the interconnected social threads.
often - generally? - you get to know more good stuff by recommendations of your circle of friends, then all the social and streaming sites. or rather - you get a lot of stuff by these channels - but the exquisite, outstanding stuff, comes through these personal ties.
these circles are in many ways similiar, but also different from past circles. they're often completely informal. they're literally just your "circle of friends", or in artist cases - your circle of artist friends.
this is a plus, because the informal nature means that popular culture, the streaming sites, the social networks, can't really tie into this. if your friend suddenly starts spamming your favorite recommandations, or invites bullshit people to your party by posting it to the larger social networks; you just stop sharing this stuff with him.
but i think we need to move. we can take on more. the more "formal" circles had its plusses too. it was good you had a punkclub where you could meet likeminded people, or an industrial anti-fanzine to get to know more music - and political theories.
i have two ideas: first, really create circles, in which some music is shared *only*. for example, as a producer, while still doing regular releases, to produce every now and then some killer and exquisite tracks only for that circle.
if this secret circle has a large number of members and artists, an interesting outcome can be had, and a community created.
it should be noted, that it's best that no outsider knows this circle or this music exists, or has ever existed.
it's also a plus when political and social theories are circulated in this grouping then.
maybe it would be possible to make the existance and the name of the circle public, but not letting everyone in - but that would be risky, and could lead to failure.
the second idea, to find another way to limit the amount of people that can access the art of a given artist. that you have to pay for some releases is a step in this direction, and maybe the price should be set higher - you would have exclusive art if you pay 10 euro for a single track, right?
but it would be awkward and extremely negative that of all things, money, this capitalist bastard, would be the measure of who can access art and who not.
but i am sure other barriers of accessibility could be found for art.
there is a lot to be done, and a lot to be achieved. but regardless of wether one succeeds with these concepts; art will still be for special circles.
Why I Left Breakcore - Addendum
a while ago, i wrote the text "why i left the breakcore scene".
this text created more discussion and feedback than i thought it would... as it was more intended as a personal text.
i feel that in many cases, the point i was trying to make, was cut short. the discussion seemed to revolve more around wether "breakcore" of the past or of the present was better, or more creative, etc.
this was not what i wanted to say. what i felt was, that in the beginning, the scene around breakcore music, was open to a certain ideology, to certain "political", cultural ideas. and i tried to use breakcore music to spread these ideas. a few while later, i felt that it had become virtually impossible to still push these ideas with breakcore music. as breakcore had been infused with a quite different ideology and politics, that were very conformist, pro-consumer society and pro-hierarchy. and i saw no way to counter this process, or rather, i decided it would be wiser to use my energies to spread these ideas in different musical settings, such as speedcore or hardcore, were these ideas could still be communicated and pushed forward. that's why i left breakcore and followed different musical ways.
this text created more discussion and feedback than i thought it would... as it was more intended as a personal text.
i feel that in many cases, the point i was trying to make, was cut short. the discussion seemed to revolve more around wether "breakcore" of the past or of the present was better, or more creative, etc.
this was not what i wanted to say. what i felt was, that in the beginning, the scene around breakcore music, was open to a certain ideology, to certain "political", cultural ideas. and i tried to use breakcore music to spread these ideas. a few while later, i felt that it had become virtually impossible to still push these ideas with breakcore music. as breakcore had been infused with a quite different ideology and politics, that were very conformist, pro-consumer society and pro-hierarchy. and i saw no way to counter this process, or rather, i decided it would be wiser to use my energies to spread these ideas in different musical settings, such as speedcore or hardcore, were these ideas could still be communicated and pushed forward. that's why i left breakcore and followed different musical ways.
Was ist denn jetzt eigentlich so schlimm an Facebook?
als im 19ten jahrhundert die meisten länder demokratische institutionen bekamen, war ein beliebtes argument der herschenden: "was stört euch denn jetzt noch an unserer gesellschaftsform, wenn euch was nicht passt, wählt anders, oder gründet eine partei und lässt auch wählen" woraufhin die antwort der anarchisten, sozialisten war: formelle demokratische mitbestimmung nützt überhaupt nichts, solange die bevölkerung, die einzelnen menschen, nicht auch die produktionsmittel besitzen bzw. "demokratisch" an ihnen teilhaben können. solange eine kleine gruppe, klasse von menschen - die bourgeoisie - sämtliche fabriken, nahrungsmittel, rohstoffe besitzen, haben diese auch de fakto die macht, und nicht die parlamente. wenn ein reformpolitiker ausnahmsweise mal gewählt werden sollte, könnte die bourgeoisie nach der wahl an ihn herantreten, und sagen: "es ist ja schön, was du den menschen versprochen hast. aber denke daran, wir sind die wirtschaft. also regiere besser nicht gegen unsere interessen".
das war im industriezeitalter - als der besitz der produktionsmittel mit das wichtigste schien. im medienzeitalter haben aber die kommunikationsmittel diesen platz eingenommen.
die allerwichtigste frage ist heute: wer besitzt die kommunikationsmittel?
in den 70ern waren viele kommunikationsmittel in der hand des staates. nehmen wir den bereich musik: das öffentlich-rechtliche fernsehen hatte einige musiksendungen, die für eine band entscheidend sein konnten, ob sie ihre musik in einem größeren kreis verbreiten kann oder nicht. wenn den verantwortlichen der ARD eine band nicht gefiel, weil sie zu punkig, lärmig, oder kritische texte hatte, dann wurde sie auch nicht gesendet. (letzendlich gab es punk und new wave bands die gesendet wurden - das wär ein eigenes thema - aber die mehrheit der musik war es nicht.)
das sich punk trotzdem verbreiten kann, lag daran, das damals die jugend, die bevölkerung noch ein grosses eigenes netz an kommunikationsmitteln hatte und entwickelte:
mundpropaganda, fanzines, parties...
das gerade diese form der kommunikation nun zu einem grossteil über facebook läuft, ist besonders traurig.
facebook ist eine art ARD-hoch-eine-million. wesentlich größer, wesentlich authoritärer, wesentlich bürokratischer, mit wesentlich mehr einfluss und künstlern / bands die von der organisation facebook abhängig sind.
was heisst es nun, das facebook in einem enormen besitz an kommunikationsmitteln ist?
es heisst z.B., das facebook jederzeit ein profil löschen kann und von der kommunikation abschneiden kann. es gibt ja kein "recht" auf ein facebookprofil. in der praxis kann das z.B. folgendes heissen: in amerika formiert sich eine christliche bewegung, die meint, metalmusik ist teufelszeug und muss verbannt werden. die medien greifen das auf, viele eltern sind begeistert, und facebook wird das ganze zu heiss, und konzipiert eine neue regel, nachdem sämtliche profile von metalbands auf facebook gelöscht werden müssen. das ist ihr "recht" weil es eben keinen rechtsanspruch auf ein facebookprofil gibt, und kann jederzeit passieren. es muss auch nicht von aussen sein. die facebookführung will z.B. auf einmal ein neues image für ihren konzern, es soll positiv-familienfreundlich sein, und sie sind der meinung, dass rapmusik da nicht reinpasst, also werden die leute aufgefordert, ihre rapprofile zu löschen. hypothetisch kann facebook ja auch jedes beliebige profil einfach so löschen, ohne das was passiert - man hat einfch keinen rechtsanspruch.
facebook ist wesentlich weniger demokratisch strukturiert als der staat und deshalb auch gefährlicher.
wenn man jetzt facebook mit älteren kommunikationsmittel vergleicht, fällt das auch auf:
z.B. eine anarchistische gruppe verteilt flugblätter, und findet auch viele anhänger. ein politiker fordert nun: stellt denen die telefone ab, verbietet das sie sich treffen, miteinander kommunizieren. dann könnten sie, solange sie nicht krass gegen das gesetz verstossen haben, dagegen protestieren, klagen, usw, und werden oft recht bekommen.
diese rechtliche mittel gibt es bei facebook garnicht mehr - facebook sperrt und löscht einfach, und damit fertig.
nun werden viele einfach sagen, das ist ja auch ihr gutes recht, sie besitzen nunmal die kommunikationsmittel, und wer diese besitzt, kann mit ihnen auch schalten und walten, wie er will.
das ist vergleichbar damit, dass die menschen im mittelalter den feudalismus auch irgendwie als normal empfunden haben, und gesagt hatten "ist nunmal so, der könig besitzt mein haus, meine felder, und kann damit machen was er will. dem könig gehört halt alles und das war schon immer so".
es sollte klar sein, dass es nicht der normalzustand sein muss, dass die menschen nicht die kommunikationsmittel besitzen, die sie benutzen, und dadurch beherschbar und abhängig werden.
die momentane situation ist praktisch so, als dürfte man sich nicht selber etwas zu essen kaufen, sondern ein nachbar verteilt das essen an alle personen im haus, und die menschen sagen: ach das ist so ein netter mensch, der würde diese macht schon nicht ausnutzen. würde er nicht? genauso verwaltet und bestimmt facebook die kommunikation der menschen, und die menschen hoffen, das facebook dies nie ausnutzen würde (obwohl das schon längst passiert).
seiten wie wikileaks wurden einfach gelöscht, weil wohl einige politiker druck auf facebook gemacht haben. man kann sich vorstellen, das jede ähnliche organisation, die eine grosse öffentlichkeit erreicht, der gleichen gefahr ausgesetzt ist.
nun war der kampf der kommunikationsmittel eines der großen themen des 20ten jahrhunderts; vielleicht das größte. selbst rocknroll war größtenteils durch kleine (eine art indie-) labels, mundpropaganda, rudimentäre gegenkulter verbreitet worden.
trotzdem war rocknroll enormer repression seitens des staates und vieler etablierter medien ausgesetzt; aber die labels konnten z.B. sagen "uns egal was die öffentliche meinung ist, wir produzieren weiter rocknrollplatten".
wenn es damals schon facebook gegeben hätte und so verbreitet gewesen wäre, wäre genau das folgende passiert: facebook hätte dem öffentlichen druck nachgegeben, und rocknroll von ihrem netzwerk verbannt, und rocknroll wäre geschichte gewesen.
der bewusste, gezielte kampf um die kommunikationsmittel wurde durch die hippiebewegung und die punkexplosion und die folgenden subkulturen noch verstärkt, durch das schaffen von gegenmedien, dem versuch einer gegenkultur, gegenöffentlichkeit und eigenen magazinen, büchern, foren verschiedenster art, treffen, gruppierungen, und es ist schade, das gerade diese form des widerstands nahezu verschwindet, und gerade die "subkultur" heute über kommunikationsmittel kommuniziert, die in extrem authoritärer hand liegen.
was auch die frage beantwortet, "was" man denn nun gegen facebook tun kann: eben wieder *eigene* kommunikationsmittel aufbauen.
der aufstieg der sozialen netzwerke ist eine enorme niederlage im kampf um die kommunikatiosnmittel und die selbstbestimmung der menschen; aber er ist noch lange nicht vorbei, und es gibt noch viel zu gewinnen.
das war im industriezeitalter - als der besitz der produktionsmittel mit das wichtigste schien. im medienzeitalter haben aber die kommunikationsmittel diesen platz eingenommen.
die allerwichtigste frage ist heute: wer besitzt die kommunikationsmittel?
in den 70ern waren viele kommunikationsmittel in der hand des staates. nehmen wir den bereich musik: das öffentlich-rechtliche fernsehen hatte einige musiksendungen, die für eine band entscheidend sein konnten, ob sie ihre musik in einem größeren kreis verbreiten kann oder nicht. wenn den verantwortlichen der ARD eine band nicht gefiel, weil sie zu punkig, lärmig, oder kritische texte hatte, dann wurde sie auch nicht gesendet. (letzendlich gab es punk und new wave bands die gesendet wurden - das wär ein eigenes thema - aber die mehrheit der musik war es nicht.)
das sich punk trotzdem verbreiten kann, lag daran, das damals die jugend, die bevölkerung noch ein grosses eigenes netz an kommunikationsmitteln hatte und entwickelte:
mundpropaganda, fanzines, parties...
das gerade diese form der kommunikation nun zu einem grossteil über facebook läuft, ist besonders traurig.
facebook ist eine art ARD-hoch-eine-million. wesentlich größer, wesentlich authoritärer, wesentlich bürokratischer, mit wesentlich mehr einfluss und künstlern / bands die von der organisation facebook abhängig sind.
was heisst es nun, das facebook in einem enormen besitz an kommunikationsmitteln ist?
es heisst z.B., das facebook jederzeit ein profil löschen kann und von der kommunikation abschneiden kann. es gibt ja kein "recht" auf ein facebookprofil. in der praxis kann das z.B. folgendes heissen: in amerika formiert sich eine christliche bewegung, die meint, metalmusik ist teufelszeug und muss verbannt werden. die medien greifen das auf, viele eltern sind begeistert, und facebook wird das ganze zu heiss, und konzipiert eine neue regel, nachdem sämtliche profile von metalbands auf facebook gelöscht werden müssen. das ist ihr "recht" weil es eben keinen rechtsanspruch auf ein facebookprofil gibt, und kann jederzeit passieren. es muss auch nicht von aussen sein. die facebookführung will z.B. auf einmal ein neues image für ihren konzern, es soll positiv-familienfreundlich sein, und sie sind der meinung, dass rapmusik da nicht reinpasst, also werden die leute aufgefordert, ihre rapprofile zu löschen. hypothetisch kann facebook ja auch jedes beliebige profil einfach so löschen, ohne das was passiert - man hat einfch keinen rechtsanspruch.
facebook ist wesentlich weniger demokratisch strukturiert als der staat und deshalb auch gefährlicher.
wenn man jetzt facebook mit älteren kommunikationsmittel vergleicht, fällt das auch auf:
z.B. eine anarchistische gruppe verteilt flugblätter, und findet auch viele anhänger. ein politiker fordert nun: stellt denen die telefone ab, verbietet das sie sich treffen, miteinander kommunizieren. dann könnten sie, solange sie nicht krass gegen das gesetz verstossen haben, dagegen protestieren, klagen, usw, und werden oft recht bekommen.
diese rechtliche mittel gibt es bei facebook garnicht mehr - facebook sperrt und löscht einfach, und damit fertig.
nun werden viele einfach sagen, das ist ja auch ihr gutes recht, sie besitzen nunmal die kommunikationsmittel, und wer diese besitzt, kann mit ihnen auch schalten und walten, wie er will.
das ist vergleichbar damit, dass die menschen im mittelalter den feudalismus auch irgendwie als normal empfunden haben, und gesagt hatten "ist nunmal so, der könig besitzt mein haus, meine felder, und kann damit machen was er will. dem könig gehört halt alles und das war schon immer so".
es sollte klar sein, dass es nicht der normalzustand sein muss, dass die menschen nicht die kommunikationsmittel besitzen, die sie benutzen, und dadurch beherschbar und abhängig werden.
die momentane situation ist praktisch so, als dürfte man sich nicht selber etwas zu essen kaufen, sondern ein nachbar verteilt das essen an alle personen im haus, und die menschen sagen: ach das ist so ein netter mensch, der würde diese macht schon nicht ausnutzen. würde er nicht? genauso verwaltet und bestimmt facebook die kommunikation der menschen, und die menschen hoffen, das facebook dies nie ausnutzen würde (obwohl das schon längst passiert).
seiten wie wikileaks wurden einfach gelöscht, weil wohl einige politiker druck auf facebook gemacht haben. man kann sich vorstellen, das jede ähnliche organisation, die eine grosse öffentlichkeit erreicht, der gleichen gefahr ausgesetzt ist.
nun war der kampf der kommunikationsmittel eines der großen themen des 20ten jahrhunderts; vielleicht das größte. selbst rocknroll war größtenteils durch kleine (eine art indie-) labels, mundpropaganda, rudimentäre gegenkulter verbreitet worden.
trotzdem war rocknroll enormer repression seitens des staates und vieler etablierter medien ausgesetzt; aber die labels konnten z.B. sagen "uns egal was die öffentliche meinung ist, wir produzieren weiter rocknrollplatten".
wenn es damals schon facebook gegeben hätte und so verbreitet gewesen wäre, wäre genau das folgende passiert: facebook hätte dem öffentlichen druck nachgegeben, und rocknroll von ihrem netzwerk verbannt, und rocknroll wäre geschichte gewesen.
der bewusste, gezielte kampf um die kommunikationsmittel wurde durch die hippiebewegung und die punkexplosion und die folgenden subkulturen noch verstärkt, durch das schaffen von gegenmedien, dem versuch einer gegenkultur, gegenöffentlichkeit und eigenen magazinen, büchern, foren verschiedenster art, treffen, gruppierungen, und es ist schade, das gerade diese form des widerstands nahezu verschwindet, und gerade die "subkultur" heute über kommunikationsmittel kommuniziert, die in extrem authoritärer hand liegen.
was auch die frage beantwortet, "was" man denn nun gegen facebook tun kann: eben wieder *eigene* kommunikationsmittel aufbauen.
der aufstieg der sozialen netzwerke ist eine enorme niederlage im kampf um die kommunikatiosnmittel und die selbstbestimmung der menschen; aber er ist noch lange nicht vorbei, und es gibt noch viel zu gewinnen.
Techno, Anarchy And The Failure Of the 20st Century
there is a feeling that many members of the technovement in the 90s, or the digital chaos movement, or meta-anarchism, felt: that, for a short moment in time, we were at the top of the world. and then we feel deep, so deep, into the deepest abyss. what exactly was this feeling - and what caused it?
i think an easy way to get a clear picture, of the situation and the possibities that were there at the end of the 20th century, is to look at the music of electronic labels such as Fischkopf or Digital Hardcore Recordings. there was something special about this music; it was not the aggression or the use of digital beats,
not even the noise; this had been done; maybe not done to the extreme, but it had been done. no, what made it special that it was actually composed of various styles of music that were stacked on each other. before Taciturne on Fischkopf Records 012, you didn't have records that combined analog techno, shrill noize, christian chorals, gabber beats, postpunk samples, japanese-style harmonics, and plenty of other things, with each other.
before Atari Teenage Riot, music with aggresion, with shouting, that combined electronic and guitars, existed; plenty of it. but before Atari Teenage Riot, there were not songs that combined rap, acid, electronic hardcore, krautrock-style electronics, avantgarde, punkrock, riot girl shouting, in one piece.
a new kind of music was created. a type of metamusic. that was what intrigued us. it was not only a combination of existing styles, but something on top of it.
most clearly this tendency at the end of the 20th century is seen in what i call "meta-anarchism"; the politics of people like Bob Black, John Zerzan and Hakim Bey. while anarchism during most of its time was firmly rooted in enlightment and 19th century style ideology, these authors took it to a whole new level and combined it with anti-enlighment, advanced ideas, ideas taken from other cultures, from art, from poetry - from science, combined them and created something new.
and, a third part of this final tendency of the 20th century, was the cyberspace, virtual reality movement.
"cyberspace" is the idea to create a completely computerbased world, a world based purely on logic and rationality and reason. a world that is artificial and exists on their own.
how are these three things connected? in all 3 types, material from the world of rationality, philosophy or art, was taken, fused with each other, combined - and something new was created, which then influented the created arts, or philosophy.
this new "rationality", way of thinking, was what suddenly came into existence at the end of 1990s - and vanished almost as quickly again. it was taking rationality and philosopy to its extreme.
so what went we wrong? we had it, for hecks sake we had - and we lost it, and we lost so much.
but, it was not without our fault.
the movie "the matrix" is a good example of this phenomen. it was hyped extremely in 1999 - and lost most of its fans in the 2000s. yet, there was now a changed fangroup that adored the movie.
the matrix was about cyberspace, a computergenerated world. this was how it was understand back then. but nowadays, its main fan base lies in the esoteric, new age realm. and these people say; "no, this is not cyberspace". "the matrix is just a metaphor for the 'astral plane'".
so we had a concept of cyberspace, something based on pure logic and reason, replaced by anti-rational, esoteric new age stuff.
and this is a good example of the degeneration of western thinking in the decades that followed the end of the 20th century.
rationality and reason is lacking more and more, so it's no wonder anti-rational "new age" ideas and such, spread. of course not only in the "esoteric" realm, anti-rationalism everywhere is growing.
but again, this is without our doing. techno *was* hyperrational in the 90s - hardcore too - maybe the most rational, logic based music - feed your head, my friends - but it also had a virulent anti-rational content. especically the social scenes around it. while music such as the anarchist, utopists bands of the 60s led to a culture of demonstrations, books written, essays, manifests, there was not much such output or activity related to techno. the crazed raver of 1992 might be an anarchist in heart, and by action and nihilistic dancing - but he was not an anarchist in action, he didn't join - or created - an anarchist group in most cases.
this scepticism of ideology and rationality by the techno-crowd was its downfull - and no wonder the original techno, trance and hardcore was replaced by "dumb" music when the year 2000 came by.
similarly, the meta-anarchist group was highly, toxically anti-rational. and deliberately and openly so. rationality and intellect was seen as a problem of 19th century philosophy and the enlightment period in philosophy generally - that had to be overcome.
only the "cyberspace" movement was seemingly not tainted by this - but quickly and completey forgotten by the people. creating a computerworld is not so much a topic for scientists and intellectuals anymore, but more for computernerds.
so, at the end of the century, existing philosophical, artistic and rational ideas were stacked on each other - with great results, but then this was quickly forgotten again. but we can get back to it. and then, we're in the advantage again.
addendum:
in the aftermath of the 20th century, this tendency still leaves it waves in some way; there are artists that combinee different musical genres, and philosophers that combine different ideas. but generally, in music the tendency is to "copy" a single genre, like punkrock, or rocknroll, or even krautrock - in an exact way, not creating something new - and the same in current "rationality" and philosophy. in many cases, the combination is laughable - like combining one hardcore techno genre with another hardcore techno genres. generally, it is lacking.
i think an easy way to get a clear picture, of the situation and the possibities that were there at the end of the 20th century, is to look at the music of electronic labels such as Fischkopf or Digital Hardcore Recordings. there was something special about this music; it was not the aggression or the use of digital beats,
not even the noise; this had been done; maybe not done to the extreme, but it had been done. no, what made it special that it was actually composed of various styles of music that were stacked on each other. before Taciturne on Fischkopf Records 012, you didn't have records that combined analog techno, shrill noize, christian chorals, gabber beats, postpunk samples, japanese-style harmonics, and plenty of other things, with each other.
before Atari Teenage Riot, music with aggresion, with shouting, that combined electronic and guitars, existed; plenty of it. but before Atari Teenage Riot, there were not songs that combined rap, acid, electronic hardcore, krautrock-style electronics, avantgarde, punkrock, riot girl shouting, in one piece.
a new kind of music was created. a type of metamusic. that was what intrigued us. it was not only a combination of existing styles, but something on top of it.
most clearly this tendency at the end of the 20th century is seen in what i call "meta-anarchism"; the politics of people like Bob Black, John Zerzan and Hakim Bey. while anarchism during most of its time was firmly rooted in enlightment and 19th century style ideology, these authors took it to a whole new level and combined it with anti-enlighment, advanced ideas, ideas taken from other cultures, from art, from poetry - from science, combined them and created something new.
and, a third part of this final tendency of the 20th century, was the cyberspace, virtual reality movement.
"cyberspace" is the idea to create a completely computerbased world, a world based purely on logic and rationality and reason. a world that is artificial and exists on their own.
how are these three things connected? in all 3 types, material from the world of rationality, philosophy or art, was taken, fused with each other, combined - and something new was created, which then influented the created arts, or philosophy.
this new "rationality", way of thinking, was what suddenly came into existence at the end of 1990s - and vanished almost as quickly again. it was taking rationality and philosopy to its extreme.
so what went we wrong? we had it, for hecks sake we had - and we lost it, and we lost so much.
but, it was not without our fault.
the movie "the matrix" is a good example of this phenomen. it was hyped extremely in 1999 - and lost most of its fans in the 2000s. yet, there was now a changed fangroup that adored the movie.
the matrix was about cyberspace, a computergenerated world. this was how it was understand back then. but nowadays, its main fan base lies in the esoteric, new age realm. and these people say; "no, this is not cyberspace". "the matrix is just a metaphor for the 'astral plane'".
so we had a concept of cyberspace, something based on pure logic and reason, replaced by anti-rational, esoteric new age stuff.
and this is a good example of the degeneration of western thinking in the decades that followed the end of the 20th century.
rationality and reason is lacking more and more, so it's no wonder anti-rational "new age" ideas and such, spread. of course not only in the "esoteric" realm, anti-rationalism everywhere is growing.
but again, this is without our doing. techno *was* hyperrational in the 90s - hardcore too - maybe the most rational, logic based music - feed your head, my friends - but it also had a virulent anti-rational content. especically the social scenes around it. while music such as the anarchist, utopists bands of the 60s led to a culture of demonstrations, books written, essays, manifests, there was not much such output or activity related to techno. the crazed raver of 1992 might be an anarchist in heart, and by action and nihilistic dancing - but he was not an anarchist in action, he didn't join - or created - an anarchist group in most cases.
this scepticism of ideology and rationality by the techno-crowd was its downfull - and no wonder the original techno, trance and hardcore was replaced by "dumb" music when the year 2000 came by.
similarly, the meta-anarchist group was highly, toxically anti-rational. and deliberately and openly so. rationality and intellect was seen as a problem of 19th century philosophy and the enlightment period in philosophy generally - that had to be overcome.
only the "cyberspace" movement was seemingly not tainted by this - but quickly and completey forgotten by the people. creating a computerworld is not so much a topic for scientists and intellectuals anymore, but more for computernerds.
so, at the end of the century, existing philosophical, artistic and rational ideas were stacked on each other - with great results, but then this was quickly forgotten again. but we can get back to it. and then, we're in the advantage again.
addendum:
in the aftermath of the 20th century, this tendency still leaves it waves in some way; there are artists that combinee different musical genres, and philosophers that combine different ideas. but generally, in music the tendency is to "copy" a single genre, like punkrock, or rocknroll, or even krautrock - in an exact way, not creating something new - and the same in current "rationality" and philosophy. in many cases, the combination is laughable - like combining one hardcore techno genre with another hardcore techno genres. generally, it is lacking.
Music And Ideal
i addressed the issue of art, music, ideals and ideology before, but there are still more aspects to look at.
which is that the removement of any kind of ideals and ideology and politics, as it happened in the last decades, is not only approved, but even celebrated, and all that in the name of "freedom" and "art". oh how wrong can you be. for example, if hardcore political punk fans disapprove of a punkband that are slipping from their former anarchist politics, this is seen as something backward. "artist should be free to do what they want", etc. it is seen in the way, that, like the reign of for example the catholic church or authoritarian aristocracy on art, the "reign" of ideology and ideals on art would be similiar oppressive. if art "has" to follow ideals, this is another rule, restriction that is necessary to overcome. if art follows ideologies like anarchism, utopism and such, this is seen as a hazard, a distraction to art and the process of creating art. "art has to be free of ideology!".
this is so dead wrong, because the cardinal error here, is that art *always* is based on ideals or idelogy, or politics, and similiar concepts. the underlying ideas and ideology are what give a given song, painting, poem, it's beauty, it's content, it's outline - all of it. the actual artwork is of lesser importance then the ideology and idea behind it. it's of almost no importance. if there is a great idea or ideology, the actual artwork will almost automically - will automatically be good. because, as i said, this is the very basis of the artwork. art is about understanding, apprehending, realizing ideals, political and other concepts, ideology and philosophy. if the idea is beautiful - its artwork is too. it can be compared to footsteps in the snow - these are just footsteps, not the man who caused them. the actual artwork is just a trace, the idea and ideology behind it is the actual art. if you remove the ideology and ideals from art, you remove the very core of art.
take punkrock. do you think the 3 chords and shrill voices was what caused the punk movement, the youth rebellion in the late 70s and 80s? it was the ideology of punk that drove people cracy, the anarchism, nihilism and uprising. and the songs were just a trace of this "ideology" of punkrock. which is why contemporary artists who create structually similiar punksongs by far don't cause an uprising like that again. they lack the politics, and ideology. the nihilism and anarchism that gave the punksongs their actual beauty - not the other way round.
again, the actual painting, book, movie, is just a trace - like a footstep in the snow. the true piece of art, is the ideology behind it.
even to diehard opponents of ideology-based art, it should be obvious that it is exactly the most political, the ideological, the most ideal-based art that is seen as the most beautiful, is the most praised. the hippie music of the 60s. the punkrock of the 70s. the nihilist rebellion of the 50s.
it is funny that people think they could apreciate the bands of the 60s movement, without being an anarchist or utopist themselves, and somehow leaving the "ideology" behind. oh what a fool you can be.
even the ideologeous music of ideologies you complete disagree with often holds beauty. think of an atheist appreciating christian choral music. even ultra-stalinist soviet music can be interesting, even if you complete oppose these "regimes".
this is because it is still better that art is based on a bad ideology, then being based on no ideology, or no politics at all.
as i said, the negatively amazing thing these days is that people appreciate - highly - bands and artists that were highly anarchist and political in their days - think of all the 60s bands - yet somehow think they could "leave" the politics behind in this, appreciate the art without it.
as i said, ideals and ideology can not be removed.
which brings us to the question, why do people actually try to remove it, and what is the result of this?
well, as i said, it is unremovable, which means that even artist how claim to be free of "politics" and ideology are actually very ideologous too.
90% of all music made these days, especially electronic music, is completely ultra-capitalist, authoritarian, hierarchic. just listen to common electronic house music, it's full of lyrics praising money, luxury, stuff like that.
oh, the artists of course claim they use these lyrics in a non-ideologeous way, maybe "ironic" way. well, it's still ideologeous. if the US army moves into another country but claims it is just peacekeepers or whatever, it's still the US army.
so, art cannot be removed from ideology and ideals, and it is what gives art meaning. of course this onslaught against "ideology" and "politics" is part of a bigger problem, which is the rapid onslaught of anti-intellectualism and anti-rationalism. at the core, people despise ideological and anarchist art because it is "intellectual", removed, smart. they cannot take this.
but don't give up the ideology - or the ideals!
which is that the removement of any kind of ideals and ideology and politics, as it happened in the last decades, is not only approved, but even celebrated, and all that in the name of "freedom" and "art". oh how wrong can you be. for example, if hardcore political punk fans disapprove of a punkband that are slipping from their former anarchist politics, this is seen as something backward. "artist should be free to do what they want", etc. it is seen in the way, that, like the reign of for example the catholic church or authoritarian aristocracy on art, the "reign" of ideology and ideals on art would be similiar oppressive. if art "has" to follow ideals, this is another rule, restriction that is necessary to overcome. if art follows ideologies like anarchism, utopism and such, this is seen as a hazard, a distraction to art and the process of creating art. "art has to be free of ideology!".
this is so dead wrong, because the cardinal error here, is that art *always* is based on ideals or idelogy, or politics, and similiar concepts. the underlying ideas and ideology are what give a given song, painting, poem, it's beauty, it's content, it's outline - all of it. the actual artwork is of lesser importance then the ideology and idea behind it. it's of almost no importance. if there is a great idea or ideology, the actual artwork will almost automically - will automatically be good. because, as i said, this is the very basis of the artwork. art is about understanding, apprehending, realizing ideals, political and other concepts, ideology and philosophy. if the idea is beautiful - its artwork is too. it can be compared to footsteps in the snow - these are just footsteps, not the man who caused them. the actual artwork is just a trace, the idea and ideology behind it is the actual art. if you remove the ideology and ideals from art, you remove the very core of art.
take punkrock. do you think the 3 chords and shrill voices was what caused the punk movement, the youth rebellion in the late 70s and 80s? it was the ideology of punk that drove people cracy, the anarchism, nihilism and uprising. and the songs were just a trace of this "ideology" of punkrock. which is why contemporary artists who create structually similiar punksongs by far don't cause an uprising like that again. they lack the politics, and ideology. the nihilism and anarchism that gave the punksongs their actual beauty - not the other way round.
again, the actual painting, book, movie, is just a trace - like a footstep in the snow. the true piece of art, is the ideology behind it.
even to diehard opponents of ideology-based art, it should be obvious that it is exactly the most political, the ideological, the most ideal-based art that is seen as the most beautiful, is the most praised. the hippie music of the 60s. the punkrock of the 70s. the nihilist rebellion of the 50s.
it is funny that people think they could apreciate the bands of the 60s movement, without being an anarchist or utopist themselves, and somehow leaving the "ideology" behind. oh what a fool you can be.
even the ideologeous music of ideologies you complete disagree with often holds beauty. think of an atheist appreciating christian choral music. even ultra-stalinist soviet music can be interesting, even if you complete oppose these "regimes".
this is because it is still better that art is based on a bad ideology, then being based on no ideology, or no politics at all.
as i said, the negatively amazing thing these days is that people appreciate - highly - bands and artists that were highly anarchist and political in their days - think of all the 60s bands - yet somehow think they could "leave" the politics behind in this, appreciate the art without it.
as i said, ideals and ideology can not be removed.
which brings us to the question, why do people actually try to remove it, and what is the result of this?
well, as i said, it is unremovable, which means that even artist how claim to be free of "politics" and ideology are actually very ideologous too.
90% of all music made these days, especially electronic music, is completely ultra-capitalist, authoritarian, hierarchic. just listen to common electronic house music, it's full of lyrics praising money, luxury, stuff like that.
oh, the artists of course claim they use these lyrics in a non-ideologeous way, maybe "ironic" way. well, it's still ideologeous. if the US army moves into another country but claims it is just peacekeepers or whatever, it's still the US army.
so, art cannot be removed from ideology and ideals, and it is what gives art meaning. of course this onslaught against "ideology" and "politics" is part of a bigger problem, which is the rapid onslaught of anti-intellectualism and anti-rationalism. at the core, people despise ideological and anarchist art because it is "intellectual", removed, smart. they cannot take this.
but don't give up the ideology - or the ideals!
Scales With A Single Fundemental Note
coming from a "techno" background, i was always fascinated by logarithmic scales and their possibility of free transponation of melodies. yet, i was also always interested in linear tuning system.
what do i mean with logarithmic and linear? 12 TET is a logarithmic tuning. all intervals are the same between notes according to their steps; C - C# is the same as F - F#. in other words, the intervals are not based on a "fundemental" note, such as C, but each interval makes sense from any note of the tonal scare. the opposite is the 12 tone linear tuning that i mentioned before; where each interval is based on a basic note, the first note. the second note then is 12-13, the second 12-14, and so on. so, unlike in TET scales, an interval between the third and the fourth note is different than for example the first and second. all tones are directly linked to a fundemental note, ratio.
now, the pythagorean tuning seems to be quite popular these days. yet, if i understand it right, it's not a linear, but a logarithmic tuning again. the interval C-G is, in it, based on the harmony 2:3, which is linear. yet C-D is not based on an interval relating directly to "C", but going a step 2:3 further from G. which means the D directs to the G, not the C. so the "C" is not a fundemental note on which everything is based.
now, each system seems to have its merits. yet i have a feeling that there is something extraordinary about linear tunings / based on a fundemental note. actually, with my first attempts i was not happy at all with the results in trying out this tuning. but now i am finally gaining ground, and the result, in the moment, is more satisfying than linear tunings to me.
what do i mean with logarithmic and linear? 12 TET is a logarithmic tuning. all intervals are the same between notes according to their steps; C - C# is the same as F - F#. in other words, the intervals are not based on a "fundemental" note, such as C, but each interval makes sense from any note of the tonal scare. the opposite is the 12 tone linear tuning that i mentioned before; where each interval is based on a basic note, the first note. the second note then is 12-13, the second 12-14, and so on. so, unlike in TET scales, an interval between the third and the fourth note is different than for example the first and second. all tones are directly linked to a fundemental note, ratio.
now, the pythagorean tuning seems to be quite popular these days. yet, if i understand it right, it's not a linear, but a logarithmic tuning again. the interval C-G is, in it, based on the harmony 2:3, which is linear. yet C-D is not based on an interval relating directly to "C", but going a step 2:3 further from G. which means the D directs to the G, not the C. so the "C" is not a fundemental note on which everything is based.
now, each system seems to have its merits. yet i have a feeling that there is something extraordinary about linear tunings / based on a fundemental note. actually, with my first attempts i was not happy at all with the results in trying out this tuning. but now i am finally gaining ground, and the result, in the moment, is more satisfying than linear tunings to me.
The Crisis Of Music
what is the crisis of music these days, that so many people seem to feel, yet find it hard to put in words often? - only to be denounced by those who assure everyone that everything would be "fine".
it is that music is only made for petty, small, boring, useless, mindless reasons - to get rich, for fame, for a social position, for greed and material selfgain. to became a star, a megaseller - or at least a "star" within an enclosed "underground scene".
music should be made for positive things, for ideals - for the good of humanity, for utopian concepts, to help others, to heal others. to add something good, something truly good and positive and wonderful and fantastic to this world. but this is to most parts lost now.
oh, i know a lot of people say this was always the case, just "covered up" so maybe not visible to everyone. but this is far from the truth. even if we would say it was like that, even in the full extent, there is a change in quality now. some promoter or musician might have joined a radical, utopian youth culture for money or fame, and covered it up with nice words. but at least the possiblity of making truly utopian music was acknowledged. these guys might have though "yeah, we are clever, the others strive for social change, but we go for luxury". but nowadays, this position itself has become almost an impossible - for these people. if an electronic musician says he makes music for the revolution, for a free world, for a radical change of the social system, or a peaceful, equal society - he will simply be laughed at, not taken serious, in fact a lot of people would assume he or she has lost his or her mind. because this "utopian viewpoint" is simply not understandable to most people now.
almost impossible - but not quite. because, after all, there are still people who believe in the revolution, in a just society and world, and in wonderful, adventurous ideals and concepts. maybe they do not even lack numbers, as opposed to the radical 60s or the punk years of the 70s. but they for sure have become less visible, less "public". in fact, i often get feedback by people who are still radical and dreamers, but most say they feel alienated to the material, greey, shallow music cultures and subcultures that feed the bullshit of the masses and the rest these days.
this could be an intermission to say to these people: go on with the struggle! you are for sure not alone.
to go on with the topic, if music is not made with a high and positive ideal in mind, it loses all it's value, it's spark, the elements that are interesting and special and outragous (in a good way). this music - becomes the shallow tripe that it is.
just think about it - some of music that is most respected and well-known these days, was it not made by dreamers and idealists, who had the most ideal social structures and radical concepts in mind? couldn't that serve as a proof that indeed this way has - its merits?
who will think of bands or musicians in 50 years that just swam with their greedy peers in a shallow soup.
also what i see a lot these day, is that, especially upcoming musicians, walk a road without orientation. they put a lot of work and energy, and quite some hard sacrifices, into their art. then it first gets ignored, gets picked up by a label or distributor or something else, than "public" interest vanes, and they slowly get back to their start and are in danger of fading into obscurity.
this is the danger when music is not based on a high ideal!
if you have an ideal - for example, helping people, giving them a positive outlook at life - you have already "attained" everything with your art, when you do this very thing. even if you only help 2-3 people this way, you have done a good deed. and it doesn't matter how many other people listen to your music or stuff like that.
and even - which is unlikely - you do not manage to do something good with your art - at least you have tried, and this is noble in itself, and you have done something good and do not have to blame yourself.
so what are these high ideals art could be based on? i already mentioned some - to create a revolutionary situation by your music, or helping a radical struggle with your output. music can be a vehicle to make people aware of social and political issues by your lyrics or titles. a noble way is to make music that generally spreads a feeling of amazement, something adventurous, marvelous - for adventure and marvel is what the world needs!
and, the most noble act could be, to create art that *heals* others, gives them hope and an outlook and a good foundation for their life.
it is no sense to try to make a comprehensive list here - any noble and good and high ideal is worth being put into art.
so the next question would be, *how* to put these ideas into? well it should be obvious - just do it. use vocals or lyrics to achieve this, or the direction of your music, the general structure of your art. also there are many many more ways. and, in the end, if you are guided by high ideals when doing your art, they doubtless will end up in your art!
so go ahead.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)