i think it's time to introduce you to my musical project, that i worked on since 2009. especially since it's now almost 8 years and i haven't disclosed it yet.
when i got back to hardcore in 2008, after a 4 year break, i was very euphoric. i was doing sounds like i used to do again, and the scene that i left years ago still seemed to be around. but i quickly felt this was an illusion; my music didn't feel as interesting to me anymore; it had lost "it"; also the scene was already at its end, and it began to crumble, i lost many social contacts to it, and was suddenly "in the air" again.
so where to go to now? i felt there was nothing i could do artistwise anymore.
my interest in all forms of art, music, movies etc. was still as strong as ever, though. i noticed, that i, and many people like the form of art the most that is not just a work of art, but - a "world" of art. an artistic world of its own.
the works of jodorowsky come to mind, who formed his jodoverse: a work of comic book series and maybe movies soon, that span over dozens and dozens of comics, with different collaborations, concepts, stories, tone, but taking place in the same imaginary world with the same characters that might or might not make an appearance in another new series by him.
a more "overground" example might be star wars and star trek, which also have 100s of works, offshots, sequels and specials, that take place in their same own world.
i realised; this was what i wanted to take a shot at with music. not writing another track, but creating a whole world of tracks.
there are three main principles behind it:
1. interconnections between tracks. a lot of my tracks share a same feeling, imaginery, intent, content. for example, there is not just the emerald planet, but the blue star, nightsky, midnight... space travel, behold the universe... dozens of star themed and cosmic themed tracks by me.
another occuring image is that of a palace, throne room, Enthronement...
or a cyborg, robot, android topic. you can find a lot of these "links" in my tracks.
2. there is also a connection in production. often tracks share a same approach, say "baseline and drums only", or multichannel melodies with the bass synthesizers as the focal point, or similiar fx on synths...
this has already gotten a mind of its own by now. when i watch a movie and find a good sample for example, i think, "can i really use this?" - does it fit to this imaginary production style or world that are my other tracks are in?
it has evolved into a lot of rules, sets, concepts, framework, when producing a track. and often i find i can't break these rules even i wanted to - maybe amend them - and maybe once in a while i could.
3. there is not just a "world of tracks" but i also imagine the tracks to take place in a world of music that is not my own too. a world where rockabilly, new wave, synthwave and oldschool techno are played at the same party and people dig it.
where 70s punk and early goth bands rule, together with speedcore and stockhausen. basically, it can happen that i sit down to produce, and i've feeling in my head, that is like: okay, imagine that this track is being played at a party tonight and the crowd likes big rock anthems and gabber beats, so how could this fit into my production?
it's just an imagination, but it is an influence.
and the funny thing is, that by now this really has a real world extension - or vice versa. most music social contacts i have really dig italo disco and black metal and reggea and funky disco hip hop at the same time, or try to combine these.
so, yeah, i tried to create some kind of an own world here, with its own rules and concepts and intent and framework. i'm not to judge if i succeeded at it, or, most importantly, if this might be interesting to anyone besides my self. but, for sure, for me, it was a wild ride till now!
Humans And Flaws
i believe all of civilization is based on one untrue principle. which is that at the core of cultural, religious, or philosophic teachings there is always the idea that the human individual is wrong, is flawed, tainted; an original sinner, a hidden devil, a dangerous egoist and worse. he has a good and bad side, and in order to progress, he has to be wiped of his bad side, and civilization has to build institutions that "educate" and punish him to help him get rid of the evil that he contains.
i think this is all wrong. every human is already perfect. the bad and good side are just an error of perspective, two sides of the same coin. nobody needs to be changed. all flaws, all errors, all cracks, gaps, disease, illness, desire and belligerence are part of the personality and only if the whole of the personality is embraced, you can get ahead. the flaws and errors are what give a person personality and makes him different from a robot, and each personality is wonderful.
the problem is when this is not understood, and people are fighting their own personality. *then* a "flaw" or crookedness can turn dangerous. but it's not the "flaw", but the force that is put on it, that creates this problem.
if you accept everything that is "wrong" about you and do not fight yourself anymore, what you think was crooked will become shining examples of your personality, your errors will become virtues.
accept yourself, accept how and what you are and all your little mistakes, and then you will really get ahead
i think this is all wrong. every human is already perfect. the bad and good side are just an error of perspective, two sides of the same coin. nobody needs to be changed. all flaws, all errors, all cracks, gaps, disease, illness, desire and belligerence are part of the personality and only if the whole of the personality is embraced, you can get ahead. the flaws and errors are what give a person personality and makes him different from a robot, and each personality is wonderful.
the problem is when this is not understood, and people are fighting their own personality. *then* a "flaw" or crookedness can turn dangerous. but it's not the "flaw", but the force that is put on it, that creates this problem.
if you accept everything that is "wrong" about you and do not fight yourself anymore, what you think was crooked will become shining examples of your personality, your errors will become virtues.
accept yourself, accept how and what you are and all your little mistakes, and then you will really get ahead
On Creating Art
art and yourself
creating art is always about being on terms with yourself. if you're on good terms with yourself producing art will not be a problem (with some exceptions). if you're on bad terms, you cannot produce anything. "creative block" is an illusion. do one thing: if you're experiencing creative block, don't delete the attempts and try-outs that you abandon in that period, as one is tempted to do. if you take a look back on them after your block is gone, you will see that they were just as genius as your other stuff. you just did not see that in that phase because you hated your art because you were in bad terms with yourself in that phase.
what connects artists from every period, nation, faith, culture is that artists always were more in touch with their inner self and core than most people. they listened to their thoughts, feelings and ideas, and they put faith in them and trusted them.
it has always confused me how a lot of people you meet have great ideas for art, music, stories... but when you tell them "write it down, create something out of it" they say "ah i'm just a common guy, not an artist... people would not be interested in that." they don't trust themselves and their creativity.
or take punk in the 70s. it's unlikely that kids were less angry in more mellow periods of music. but those punks said, i'm angry, and i'm right about it and the world needs to know, and then the rebellion happened.
oh, what about self-destructive rockstars and the likes? they were torn between extreme self-love and contempt. if they were able to present their creative output to millions of people, they could not be in total self-contempt.
but there is also another thing to it. in order to take on the stress of, well, being famous, you need to be very centered on your self, but also very likely to get thrown out of your center when the strain is too big. that's why we find with famous artists periods of extreme egotism and excesses, and of decay and self-hate.
you are the source of your creativity. so better be in good terms with yourself.
your personal art
i said the problem of creative block comes down to lack of love for your creativity and inner self. but that's not totally true. there are two exceptions.
the general misunderstanding is that an artist can do all kind of art within his range (painting, writing, music...). sometimes reduced to a closer circle of a period, or a style.
and the better he or she is, the better he or she is adopting other styles in a certain range.
but that's not true. famous artists got famous because they had their individual style that was unlike everything of their period and age.
true, there are groups and artists known for appropriating art of different styles. but even in that case they give their very personal touch to these "other people's genres".
take techno. "a techno track should have a melody... drums... percussion..." you think, and the upcoming techno artist wants to be good and all that. but maybe you are just good at melodies. or just at rhythms. just at creating interesting fx. why not do a track that has just melody then, or where the rest is of lesser focus? or, even more specific, you are only good at certain melodies, in a certain style - then just do them.
if you are bad at a specific element - find a way around it, don't use it, or take the focus off it in your work of art.
if you think your art is not going anywhere - there must be something you are good at. even if it's just 7 minute drumloops or 10 second snippets. than make tracks based on snippets or intermingling monotonic drums.
a good artist will not be good at everything
all the time. a good artist just knows what he is good at.
ideals
a third issue is the following. art is about ideas and should be based on ideas. this knowledge has faded over time, and there is way too much focus on the technical and more direct aspects of creating art. vsts, what EQ to use, compressor, etc, in music for example.
there are ideas directly related to art, like to combine various genres, or a new take on a style. but more important are ideas that seemingly come outside of the realm of art. expressing the vision of anarchy. basing a track on the biography of a person. creating an interesting soundtrack to a fascinating book.
the more abstract, the more ideal, the better. finding a way to put a social movement, a political theory, a cultural uprising to art, to painting, to music.
if you have a good idea, you'll see that you almost automatically will find the right methods and ways to create a piece of art to it.
i expressed three very different methods to beat creative block and to create art, and i feel all three need to combined for the best results. find a way to fuse and seamlessly mend them together.
creating art is always about being on terms with yourself. if you're on good terms with yourself producing art will not be a problem (with some exceptions). if you're on bad terms, you cannot produce anything. "creative block" is an illusion. do one thing: if you're experiencing creative block, don't delete the attempts and try-outs that you abandon in that period, as one is tempted to do. if you take a look back on them after your block is gone, you will see that they were just as genius as your other stuff. you just did not see that in that phase because you hated your art because you were in bad terms with yourself in that phase.
what connects artists from every period, nation, faith, culture is that artists always were more in touch with their inner self and core than most people. they listened to their thoughts, feelings and ideas, and they put faith in them and trusted them.
it has always confused me how a lot of people you meet have great ideas for art, music, stories... but when you tell them "write it down, create something out of it" they say "ah i'm just a common guy, not an artist... people would not be interested in that." they don't trust themselves and their creativity.
or take punk in the 70s. it's unlikely that kids were less angry in more mellow periods of music. but those punks said, i'm angry, and i'm right about it and the world needs to know, and then the rebellion happened.
oh, what about self-destructive rockstars and the likes? they were torn between extreme self-love and contempt. if they were able to present their creative output to millions of people, they could not be in total self-contempt.
but there is also another thing to it. in order to take on the stress of, well, being famous, you need to be very centered on your self, but also very likely to get thrown out of your center when the strain is too big. that's why we find with famous artists periods of extreme egotism and excesses, and of decay and self-hate.
you are the source of your creativity. so better be in good terms with yourself.
your personal art
i said the problem of creative block comes down to lack of love for your creativity and inner self. but that's not totally true. there are two exceptions.
the general misunderstanding is that an artist can do all kind of art within his range (painting, writing, music...). sometimes reduced to a closer circle of a period, or a style.
and the better he or she is, the better he or she is adopting other styles in a certain range.
but that's not true. famous artists got famous because they had their individual style that was unlike everything of their period and age.
true, there are groups and artists known for appropriating art of different styles. but even in that case they give their very personal touch to these "other people's genres".
take techno. "a techno track should have a melody... drums... percussion..." you think, and the upcoming techno artist wants to be good and all that. but maybe you are just good at melodies. or just at rhythms. just at creating interesting fx. why not do a track that has just melody then, or where the rest is of lesser focus? or, even more specific, you are only good at certain melodies, in a certain style - then just do them.
if you are bad at a specific element - find a way around it, don't use it, or take the focus off it in your work of art.
if you think your art is not going anywhere - there must be something you are good at. even if it's just 7 minute drumloops or 10 second snippets. than make tracks based on snippets or intermingling monotonic drums.
a good artist will not be good at everything
all the time. a good artist just knows what he is good at.
ideals
a third issue is the following. art is about ideas and should be based on ideas. this knowledge has faded over time, and there is way too much focus on the technical and more direct aspects of creating art. vsts, what EQ to use, compressor, etc, in music for example.
there are ideas directly related to art, like to combine various genres, or a new take on a style. but more important are ideas that seemingly come outside of the realm of art. expressing the vision of anarchy. basing a track on the biography of a person. creating an interesting soundtrack to a fascinating book.
the more abstract, the more ideal, the better. finding a way to put a social movement, a political theory, a cultural uprising to art, to painting, to music.
if you have a good idea, you'll see that you almost automatically will find the right methods and ways to create a piece of art to it.
i expressed three very different methods to beat creative block and to create art, and i feel all three need to combined for the best results. find a way to fuse and seamlessly mend them together.
Experimental Electronics And Other Music Blog
EEAOM is a blog that started in 2010. the idea was that at that point a lot of very interesting artists and sounds were emerging, but because the variety and especially obscurity of these microscenes and sonic individuals, it had become extremely hard to keep track on them and their output, or even to get to know these new sounds. from the beginning, the focus was always not on a specific sound or genre, but something from anything as long as it was good and thrilling... doomcore, acid, techno, funk, electronica, noize, rock, jazz, you name it, and everything in between. EEAOM was especially interested in artists that took things to a new level, creating unheard sounds and genre combinations, and having a true impact in their sounds.
EEAOM is running for over 6 years now, has more than 60.000 views and over 2000 posts.
the idea was always to have a diversity of content, with interviews, charts, features, reviews and essays, but it quickly turned out that the main backbone were the daily updates of new sounds.
EEAOM at one point spawned a digital fanzine called Cyborg Coffee with the focus purely on techno theory and social commentary that was very shortlived.
content from EEAOM eventually resulted in the digital DIY publishing of two books, "PCP - Legends In Their Life" which was itself spread and read by tens of thousands of people, and "The Hardcore Condition" about labels like Fischkopf, which also reached thousands of people.
the ENWAOIM blog was split from the main blog to focus purely on indie, rock, nudisco and pop genres while the focus of the main blog was set to "electronic" genres, but after a while this distinction was removed again, with ENWAOIM becoming defunct.
a noteworthy feature on EEAOM are always the yearly charts which feature sounds of various genres.
there was always the attempt to get more people into the boat for adding content to EEAOM but it was hard to find those that are motivated (or want to get involved in a non-profit blog).
EEAOM is always open for sonic or otherwise input by artists, labels, collectives that do some interesting stuff and stick out from the masses, as well as feedback from everyone.
on to the next 6 years!
http://experimentalelectronicsandothermusic.blogspot.com
EEAOM is running for over 6 years now, has more than 60.000 views and over 2000 posts.
the idea was always to have a diversity of content, with interviews, charts, features, reviews and essays, but it quickly turned out that the main backbone were the daily updates of new sounds.
EEAOM at one point spawned a digital fanzine called Cyborg Coffee with the focus purely on techno theory and social commentary that was very shortlived.
content from EEAOM eventually resulted in the digital DIY publishing of two books, "PCP - Legends In Their Life" which was itself spread and read by tens of thousands of people, and "The Hardcore Condition" about labels like Fischkopf, which also reached thousands of people.
the ENWAOIM blog was split from the main blog to focus purely on indie, rock, nudisco and pop genres while the focus of the main blog was set to "electronic" genres, but after a while this distinction was removed again, with ENWAOIM becoming defunct.
a noteworthy feature on EEAOM are always the yearly charts which feature sounds of various genres.
there was always the attempt to get more people into the boat for adding content to EEAOM but it was hard to find those that are motivated (or want to get involved in a non-profit blog).
EEAOM is always open for sonic or otherwise input by artists, labels, collectives that do some interesting stuff and stick out from the masses, as well as feedback from everyone.
on to the next 6 years!
http://experimentalelectronicsandothermusic.blogspot.com
Anarchy After Modernism
anarchism was the only thing that had any sense, any meaning in the last 200 years or so, in the west. all subcultures that had any meaning, such as punk or subversive techno, gained it by their entanglement in anarchy. the anarchist theory was ahead of its contemporary theorists, starting with monarchists, bourgeois democrats, authoritarian socialists, more liberal democrats after WWII or even more modern strains of thinking such as 'focaultism'.
yet anarchism, from its conception on, had one big, painful, crippling flaw, that was the sole reason a lasting anarchist society was never created during its times. which was that it was created during modernism, and was a modernist ideology through and through. from modernism it inherited the one big misconception; that action and activism relating to the 'real world' would be more important than theoretical, intellectual efforts. anarchism was all about activism; the man who is 'all talk no action' was always the main antagonist in anarchists' thought. so they stormed into the real world, agitated, organized, creating protests, rallies, even sabotage and terrorism. and met the fierce opposition of the powers that be and - failed.
in modernism, action speaks louder than words, the real world is more important than thinking.
but this is all wrong; theory is more important than action; idealism is more powerful than realism; the intellect is the one driving force in human behavior; and the intellectual is the one who holds the key to changing society.
the humans who had the most impact on the course of history, did do this solely by picking up a pen or using their voice. marx, freud, countless of other 'theorists', or if you believe the myth: buddha, christ, etc.
the theoretical, abstract, 'ideological' defines society, its tangible structures, its concrete happenings, its everyday life, not the other way round. the belief in the 'idea' of military has more power on people than the military forces, the idea of anarchy would have more impact than anarchist activism.
we don't need anarchist terrorism, we need 'anarchist theorism'. direct action, while still important, has not the place of - abstract thinking.
there is something that has happened to almost every anarchist. when turned to anarchism, the idea of anarchy seems within ones grasp, the revolution just around the corner. then one ventures into 'the real world', into anarchist organizations, activism, struggles, and meets disappointment after disappointment, until the idea of anarchy seems so faded and weak. what happened? not the idea of anarchy was weak - you just turned from it by choosing activism and 'real world action' over furthering your ideal by thinking, idealism, spreading the ideas. you should have stayed with your ideal - you should have stayed an idealist.
i'll give you examples. there is a generation of people that grew up with movies in which 'blacks' have as much wit, impact, smartness and appeal as 'whites'. this has changed minds more than any activism.
even mainstream movies now often, quite routinely paint politicians as utterly corrupt and incompetent. this has corroded the popular belief in government institutions more than our own ittle work.
music such as punk, political hip hop, subversive techno did more propaganda for our rebel cause - by purely artistic and intellectual means - then we could have done otherwise.
if all anarchists had turned into writers, philosophers, musicians, directors, painters, instead of ralliers, 'activists' and bomb builders - we would already live in perfect anarchy by now.
even with the classical anarchists, what is most remembered, admired, and recreated to this day? their countless acts and their activism, or not rather - their thoughts, books, theories?
let us get rid of modernism and its painful reversal of things, with its replacement of the theoretical with the practical.
let us be idealists - dull 'realists' be gone - let us embrace the theoretical, the abstract, let us embrace thinking.
let us not be unbalanced.
we likely need *some* action for our anarchy (or do we?) - 100% theory and 0% could be a trap.
but the main focus should be on theory and the abstract. the right form of activity will almost automatically arise when our theories, and our framework of theories, are strong enough.
let us be artists and dreamers, for these inspire, and for these have have the last laugh.
let us be philosophers.
let us be intellectual.
and let us spread ideas - and let us spread ideals.
yet anarchism, from its conception on, had one big, painful, crippling flaw, that was the sole reason a lasting anarchist society was never created during its times. which was that it was created during modernism, and was a modernist ideology through and through. from modernism it inherited the one big misconception; that action and activism relating to the 'real world' would be more important than theoretical, intellectual efforts. anarchism was all about activism; the man who is 'all talk no action' was always the main antagonist in anarchists' thought. so they stormed into the real world, agitated, organized, creating protests, rallies, even sabotage and terrorism. and met the fierce opposition of the powers that be and - failed.
in modernism, action speaks louder than words, the real world is more important than thinking.
but this is all wrong; theory is more important than action; idealism is more powerful than realism; the intellect is the one driving force in human behavior; and the intellectual is the one who holds the key to changing society.
the humans who had the most impact on the course of history, did do this solely by picking up a pen or using their voice. marx, freud, countless of other 'theorists', or if you believe the myth: buddha, christ, etc.
the theoretical, abstract, 'ideological' defines society, its tangible structures, its concrete happenings, its everyday life, not the other way round. the belief in the 'idea' of military has more power on people than the military forces, the idea of anarchy would have more impact than anarchist activism.
we don't need anarchist terrorism, we need 'anarchist theorism'. direct action, while still important, has not the place of - abstract thinking.
there is something that has happened to almost every anarchist. when turned to anarchism, the idea of anarchy seems within ones grasp, the revolution just around the corner. then one ventures into 'the real world', into anarchist organizations, activism, struggles, and meets disappointment after disappointment, until the idea of anarchy seems so faded and weak. what happened? not the idea of anarchy was weak - you just turned from it by choosing activism and 'real world action' over furthering your ideal by thinking, idealism, spreading the ideas. you should have stayed with your ideal - you should have stayed an idealist.
i'll give you examples. there is a generation of people that grew up with movies in which 'blacks' have as much wit, impact, smartness and appeal as 'whites'. this has changed minds more than any activism.
even mainstream movies now often, quite routinely paint politicians as utterly corrupt and incompetent. this has corroded the popular belief in government institutions more than our own ittle work.
music such as punk, political hip hop, subversive techno did more propaganda for our rebel cause - by purely artistic and intellectual means - then we could have done otherwise.
if all anarchists had turned into writers, philosophers, musicians, directors, painters, instead of ralliers, 'activists' and bomb builders - we would already live in perfect anarchy by now.
even with the classical anarchists, what is most remembered, admired, and recreated to this day? their countless acts and their activism, or not rather - their thoughts, books, theories?
let us get rid of modernism and its painful reversal of things, with its replacement of the theoretical with the practical.
let us be idealists - dull 'realists' be gone - let us embrace the theoretical, the abstract, let us embrace thinking.
let us not be unbalanced.
we likely need *some* action for our anarchy (or do we?) - 100% theory and 0% could be a trap.
but the main focus should be on theory and the abstract. the right form of activity will almost automatically arise when our theories, and our framework of theories, are strong enough.
let us be artists and dreamers, for these inspire, and for these have have the last laugh.
let us be philosophers.
let us be intellectual.
and let us spread ideas - and let us spread ideals.
The Appeal Of Fascism
over time, every society loses the contact to its ideals, its ideas, that maybe were its base a long time ago. it becomes corrupted and decayed. then a new generation comes, who realizes this, and questions this society, such as it had happened in the 60s. they will say, 'you leaders talk about freedom, peace, equality, but your government, your military, your police, is the complete opposite of freedom, of peace, of equality.". but it doesn't end there. another generation comes, and questions the rebel generation that was before it. 'you hippies talked about peace and equal rights, but the hippie movement was full of hypocrites, of hierarchies, of tricks and oppression, of corruption and misery too". such as the punk generation did in the 70s. but, what happens now is that not a new call for justice, freedom and liberty is made. suddenly, such calls itself are seen with a skeptical eye. didn't the hippies fail with their call of freedom? would not all movements themselves fail with such a call? but yet, these movements retain a positive, an "idealistic" core. punk was a call for rebellion and included those who where alienated from society, and created a bond and a positive moments - at least in some parts. even though it did not put it trust on calls-for-action, pamphlets, revolutionary campaigns and books like the hippies did.
with the techno movement in the 90s you had a movement that had a large idealistic core, yet was highly skeptical of anything "ideological", especially political ideology.
what happened after the hippies, punk and techno though was that slowly the *ideals* itself became the focus of criticism. this ended in the generation of 2000-2010 which was the most nihilistic generation that ever walked in the west, because they did not believe in the possibility of a free and just society, or a positive revolution, or any large scale optimistic societal change at all. ideals like resistance and global justice were completely alien to them - at least to the majority.
no ideal, not in its truth and purity, could be of interest to them. the stories of revolution past, of marx and kropotkin and lenin and bakunin were as removed to their everyday life as the sand oceans of mars.
yet, again, the story does not stop there. in 2006, the majority no longer lived for ideals in their life, but for everyday topics like a career, an own house, trying to get rich, or at least semi-rich, etc etc etc. ideals were removed from their lifeline.
but, of course, deep inside ones self, one knows that one needs an ideal in his life. that one cannot live just for "fun" or for whatever comes along, or not even just for money and a business life. this is where slowly the extreme right and fascism comes into play.
they started to provide anti-ideals to people, that were disguised as ideals. nation, authority, race, 'religious identity'. 'do you dislike the corruption of society? do you realize how meaningless life in modern society is?' 'join us! become proud of the color of your skin, the nation you were born in!'.
these anti-ideals are completely opposed to true ideals, as fascism brings only misery, hatred and disaster to mankind, unlike idealism, which elevates man, brings man to help others, to do good, to create something positive.
like there are always idealists in society, even in corrupted society, for which ideals appeal, and who are ready to do something constructive, there are completely negative people in society, to which immediately these anti-ideals appeal and who are ready to do the worst filth and cruelty.
it should be noted that the extreme right and the fascists really try to dress their anti-ideals as "true" ideals. that there would be something great, ideal, a "better-than-everyday-life" aspect to nationalism, to "pride" in ones race, to authoritarian leaderships (exclaimed as being made up of true heroes, and not the rats and the scum that the fascist leaders are in reality).
and they hit on a society that is so made up of nihilists desperate for an "ideal" no matter what, that they readily join the ranks of the of the rightwingers, extreme conservatives, of the fascists.
as the connection to true ideals has been severed in society, it's hard to oppose this.
because it's not that the anti-ideals replaced the nihilism; it's still there, as something that works as a block, which prevents people from understanding true ideals.
for example, when a fascist says "whites should dominate the other races", you cannot just counter it with a statement like "all 'ethnic' groups should work together", like it was still possible in the 60s, in the 70s, in the 90s. because nihilism is in full swing, and a statement like that would be an ideal, and people don't believe in ideals anymore. 'you're a fool if you believe that all races could live in peace, it's a dream, it's more complicated, real life is different.'
they're skeptical of the belief in ideals, yet they more than childishly believe in their own anti-ideals of racial or otherwise superiority.
so, what is to be done? the only way is to return to real ideals - truth, freedom, equality, solidarity - and to convince people of them again, and show them they are indeed very tangible, possible things, and that a true free and just society is very much possible.
*note: i use the word "nihilism" in a special way in this text. i note that true nihilism has its very positive aspects, but i wanted to use the word in this text as indicating the lack and loss of ideals amongst people.
with the techno movement in the 90s you had a movement that had a large idealistic core, yet was highly skeptical of anything "ideological", especially political ideology.
what happened after the hippies, punk and techno though was that slowly the *ideals* itself became the focus of criticism. this ended in the generation of 2000-2010 which was the most nihilistic generation that ever walked in the west, because they did not believe in the possibility of a free and just society, or a positive revolution, or any large scale optimistic societal change at all. ideals like resistance and global justice were completely alien to them - at least to the majority.
no ideal, not in its truth and purity, could be of interest to them. the stories of revolution past, of marx and kropotkin and lenin and bakunin were as removed to their everyday life as the sand oceans of mars.
yet, again, the story does not stop there. in 2006, the majority no longer lived for ideals in their life, but for everyday topics like a career, an own house, trying to get rich, or at least semi-rich, etc etc etc. ideals were removed from their lifeline.
but, of course, deep inside ones self, one knows that one needs an ideal in his life. that one cannot live just for "fun" or for whatever comes along, or not even just for money and a business life. this is where slowly the extreme right and fascism comes into play.
they started to provide anti-ideals to people, that were disguised as ideals. nation, authority, race, 'religious identity'. 'do you dislike the corruption of society? do you realize how meaningless life in modern society is?' 'join us! become proud of the color of your skin, the nation you were born in!'.
these anti-ideals are completely opposed to true ideals, as fascism brings only misery, hatred and disaster to mankind, unlike idealism, which elevates man, brings man to help others, to do good, to create something positive.
like there are always idealists in society, even in corrupted society, for which ideals appeal, and who are ready to do something constructive, there are completely negative people in society, to which immediately these anti-ideals appeal and who are ready to do the worst filth and cruelty.
it should be noted that the extreme right and the fascists really try to dress their anti-ideals as "true" ideals. that there would be something great, ideal, a "better-than-everyday-life" aspect to nationalism, to "pride" in ones race, to authoritarian leaderships (exclaimed as being made up of true heroes, and not the rats and the scum that the fascist leaders are in reality).
and they hit on a society that is so made up of nihilists desperate for an "ideal" no matter what, that they readily join the ranks of the of the rightwingers, extreme conservatives, of the fascists.
as the connection to true ideals has been severed in society, it's hard to oppose this.
because it's not that the anti-ideals replaced the nihilism; it's still there, as something that works as a block, which prevents people from understanding true ideals.
for example, when a fascist says "whites should dominate the other races", you cannot just counter it with a statement like "all 'ethnic' groups should work together", like it was still possible in the 60s, in the 70s, in the 90s. because nihilism is in full swing, and a statement like that would be an ideal, and people don't believe in ideals anymore. 'you're a fool if you believe that all races could live in peace, it's a dream, it's more complicated, real life is different.'
they're skeptical of the belief in ideals, yet they more than childishly believe in their own anti-ideals of racial or otherwise superiority.
so, what is to be done? the only way is to return to real ideals - truth, freedom, equality, solidarity - and to convince people of them again, and show them they are indeed very tangible, possible things, and that a true free and just society is very much possible.
*note: i use the word "nihilism" in a special way in this text. i note that true nihilism has its very positive aspects, but i wanted to use the word in this text as indicating the lack and loss of ideals amongst people.
A Message
when i started doing music almost 19 years ago, i always had a clear, a very clear idea of the main things i wanted to express in my art, and these ideas did not change over time and they stayed the same.
1. "it's alright"
hardcore was often produced and listened and to by troubled people, at least it seemed to me, people with problems, mental health issues, on a dead end way. yet to me, hardcore always put the message: it doesn't matter in the end. you are still a valuable person. you can still enjoy life even if everything is shit around you. you can still celebrate life.
punk or some type of rock too had a kind of "brilliance in face of misery" attitude, but to me that was too self-destructive and ultimately negative. to me it meant, 'okay, your life has problems, but try to change it, do your best, but while you're stuck, don't let your head down'.
be positive in face of misery, and if the world's end sirens wail tomorrow, we can still party.
2. "embrace it"
human nature is split, we have a positive and a dark side. most people try all of their life to run from their own darkness. that can be feelings of depression, or aggression, or perversion, or whatever else. hardcore showed me you do not need to be afraid if your negative emotions. i'm not talking about living out wicked fantasies or shit like that. but accepting that humans have a fascination for the diseased, the crooked, the misfit, and that is part of our personalities too. and there is no harm in thinking about these things. again, i'm not talking about sick stuff here, but for example feelings of overwhelming melancholy or frustration / alienation.
3. "there is an alternative"
hardcore itself was an alternative to the overwhelming boring mainstream music in the 90s. but apart from that: most people feel stuck in their lives and society right now.
they don't think a different way of life or social structure is possible. but that's not true. alternatives are always possible. there is something that is a true opposite to our oppressive and unjust society. a free, just, peaceful society is possible. even if it just starts at "small scale" first.
you *can* live life differently than the rest. don't let anybody tell you otherwise.
this is my message. i hope it got through.
1. "it's alright"
hardcore was often produced and listened and to by troubled people, at least it seemed to me, people with problems, mental health issues, on a dead end way. yet to me, hardcore always put the message: it doesn't matter in the end. you are still a valuable person. you can still enjoy life even if everything is shit around you. you can still celebrate life.
punk or some type of rock too had a kind of "brilliance in face of misery" attitude, but to me that was too self-destructive and ultimately negative. to me it meant, 'okay, your life has problems, but try to change it, do your best, but while you're stuck, don't let your head down'.
be positive in face of misery, and if the world's end sirens wail tomorrow, we can still party.
2. "embrace it"
human nature is split, we have a positive and a dark side. most people try all of their life to run from their own darkness. that can be feelings of depression, or aggression, or perversion, or whatever else. hardcore showed me you do not need to be afraid if your negative emotions. i'm not talking about living out wicked fantasies or shit like that. but accepting that humans have a fascination for the diseased, the crooked, the misfit, and that is part of our personalities too. and there is no harm in thinking about these things. again, i'm not talking about sick stuff here, but for example feelings of overwhelming melancholy or frustration / alienation.
3. "there is an alternative"
hardcore itself was an alternative to the overwhelming boring mainstream music in the 90s. but apart from that: most people feel stuck in their lives and society right now.
they don't think a different way of life or social structure is possible. but that's not true. alternatives are always possible. there is something that is a true opposite to our oppressive and unjust society. a free, just, peaceful society is possible. even if it just starts at "small scale" first.
you *can* live life differently than the rest. don't let anybody tell you otherwise.
this is my message. i hope it got through.
My Personal 80s
generally, the last years, or even decades, there was a rising interest in a specific decade - the 80s. lots of revivals, retrospectives and lots of other retros. what was significant for me was that they painted a much, much different picture of the 80s then the one i lived through. i was born on the 16th november 1980 - so basically i lived through almost all of the 80s. whether the situation in germany was different to the rest of the world and and thus different to the picture of the usually usa and uk centered retrospectives of the 80s, whether my own situation was different, or whether there is a redefinition of a decade going on as part of cultural warfare - i don't know. all i can do is write down my personal account of the 80s.
first of all, the 80s was a political decade. the left movement was strong. the peace movement was strong. the ecology movement was strong. the punk movement was strong. images of riots, demonstrations, rallies, greenpeace, left terrorism and activism on the television defined my early childhood. the left was simply a major player these years, including the radical left. it cannot be compared to our current days, where it has withered, and is far from being a hearable voice in public debate, even farther from being a force in society.
i remember in the early 2000s talking to an anarchist friend about the riots in genova and other cities, that were part of the anti-globalization then. his comment was the riots were all good, but, back in the 80s one would not have to travel annually to far away cities for this, but there were similar riots in hamburg and other large cities of germany every weekend!
apart from the anarchist rioters, the peace and fairly new ecological movements were another factor in society. and unlike the rioters their voices also had a bigger effect on debates in the more mainstream of societies. i remember my oldest brother ran into trouble at school because he brought coca-cola for the break inbetween classes. coca-cola, a money-minded corporation from capitalist usa! the teachers and parents were shocked!
of course germany in the 80s was far from being a "riot nation" - but it was, to a degree.
but getting beyond leftism, the 80s were dominated by politics either way. the cold war was in full effect, and talk about a possible war, the danger of nuclear bombs, the relationship to russia and the eastern bloc, as well as the revolts and changes that went on in the "third world" totally dominated public discourse and the media these years, till the fall of the eastern wall.
yet, there was also a wholly different thing about the 80s. it was still the space age. there was an interest in everything science, astronomy, space, science fiction, that too was a part of societal live and society. the then new synthpop music was full of space themes, science fiction movies generally attracted a large audience, there were plenty of documentaries relating to everything space on TV. if you think "interest in space" today, you think of a scifi nerd teen maybe, but if you seen some 80s TV shows or documentaries on this topic, you will remember serious, well combed and dressed adult men talking about and taking an earnest interest in "mars flights until the year 2000" or the possibility of alien life, or the future moon colonization, with a seriousness towards these things that is baffling for today's audience (because now we are sure we will not live on the moon in the next 50 years... or will we?). this definitely gives a picture of how it was then.
of course, similar with leftism, not everyone was a spacehead in the 80s. but it definitely was not the nerd thing it was by 1996 - but played a part in the societal mainstream.
this were my 80s. did i get the wrong picture due to my young age? or do people of our era can not dive deep into a gone decade, and necessarily they're the ones with the wrong picture? over the years, with snippets of tv shows or films from the 80s, i get the idea that my picture is maybe not as subjective as it might appear at first.
so, now we have 2016, and it seems that maybe these things are not as gone and far away as one might have thought between 2000-2010. there is definitely a growing interest in politics. there is real political talk and debates again. there is a heightened interest in anarchism.
space themes and science fiction, in music tv and film make a comeback. when it was announced earlier this year, that a 9th (10th?) planet might be discovered soon in our solar system, and the mainstream news was eager to pick this up and run the story, i got a positive vibe of "retro-future shock". because this was definitely close to the feelings towards these things in the long gone by decade.
first of all, the 80s was a political decade. the left movement was strong. the peace movement was strong. the ecology movement was strong. the punk movement was strong. images of riots, demonstrations, rallies, greenpeace, left terrorism and activism on the television defined my early childhood. the left was simply a major player these years, including the radical left. it cannot be compared to our current days, where it has withered, and is far from being a hearable voice in public debate, even farther from being a force in society.
i remember in the early 2000s talking to an anarchist friend about the riots in genova and other cities, that were part of the anti-globalization then. his comment was the riots were all good, but, back in the 80s one would not have to travel annually to far away cities for this, but there were similar riots in hamburg and other large cities of germany every weekend!
apart from the anarchist rioters, the peace and fairly new ecological movements were another factor in society. and unlike the rioters their voices also had a bigger effect on debates in the more mainstream of societies. i remember my oldest brother ran into trouble at school because he brought coca-cola for the break inbetween classes. coca-cola, a money-minded corporation from capitalist usa! the teachers and parents were shocked!
of course germany in the 80s was far from being a "riot nation" - but it was, to a degree.
but getting beyond leftism, the 80s were dominated by politics either way. the cold war was in full effect, and talk about a possible war, the danger of nuclear bombs, the relationship to russia and the eastern bloc, as well as the revolts and changes that went on in the "third world" totally dominated public discourse and the media these years, till the fall of the eastern wall.
yet, there was also a wholly different thing about the 80s. it was still the space age. there was an interest in everything science, astronomy, space, science fiction, that too was a part of societal live and society. the then new synthpop music was full of space themes, science fiction movies generally attracted a large audience, there were plenty of documentaries relating to everything space on TV. if you think "interest in space" today, you think of a scifi nerd teen maybe, but if you seen some 80s TV shows or documentaries on this topic, you will remember serious, well combed and dressed adult men talking about and taking an earnest interest in "mars flights until the year 2000" or the possibility of alien life, or the future moon colonization, with a seriousness towards these things that is baffling for today's audience (because now we are sure we will not live on the moon in the next 50 years... or will we?). this definitely gives a picture of how it was then.
of course, similar with leftism, not everyone was a spacehead in the 80s. but it definitely was not the nerd thing it was by 1996 - but played a part in the societal mainstream.
this were my 80s. did i get the wrong picture due to my young age? or do people of our era can not dive deep into a gone decade, and necessarily they're the ones with the wrong picture? over the years, with snippets of tv shows or films from the 80s, i get the idea that my picture is maybe not as subjective as it might appear at first.
so, now we have 2016, and it seems that maybe these things are not as gone and far away as one might have thought between 2000-2010. there is definitely a growing interest in politics. there is real political talk and debates again. there is a heightened interest in anarchism.
space themes and science fiction, in music tv and film make a comeback. when it was announced earlier this year, that a 9th (10th?) planet might be discovered soon in our solar system, and the mainstream news was eager to pick this up and run the story, i got a positive vibe of "retro-future shock". because this was definitely close to the feelings towards these things in the long gone by decade.
Plato's Anarchy
plato's theory of forms can be seen in a purely intellectual way. of certain theories, ideas, concepts, thoughts, pure versions can be conceived. this can be seen best in the field of mathematics, with it's pure, irrefutable logic, formulas, theorems and abstractions. what is noteworthy is that in the history of philosophy, these thinkers that dealt with plato's theory of forms usually put their focus only on ideas that are friendly to existing society and hierarchy; such as the question of a pure government. yet if we assume that on an intellectual level we can imagine a pure version to any idea or thought (such as pure justice to justice, or pure freedom to freedom), this also goes for ideas that are neglected by and are dirty to society. pure rebellion, pure anarchy, pure resistance, pure chaos. the theory of anarchism and resistance has to exist on an abstract, wholly intellectual, "higher" level too (while at the same time, of course, staying a real world affair). so let's indulge in that.
Music And Politics - Part 2
there are two main points that are brought forth when talking about the connection of politics and music. the first is that one should not *force* artists to develop a connection with politics. that it is the choice of the artist whether he wants to do political or unpolitical art. what quickly becomes visible though is that the same people readily get angry about political art and artists. if it's freedom of choice, shouldn't the choice to be political be respected too? seems these types have a very one-sided definition of freedom, and of choice. but that is not the main thing i want to say. the thing is that no artwork is merely the artwork to itself. art always has a cultural connection, a social connection, a connection to the individual, the artist - and always a political connection! there is simply no unpolitical art. every art also has a political message that it communicates to the audience. it's so strange that in our times there is such a focus on the social and other connections of the artist - how was his childhood, his youth, his ethnic background, was he raised religiously - but almost no interest in the political convictions of the artist. if the culture or social surrounding influenced his artworks, why shouldn't have his political connection left a mark on his art? in fact even when there is a piece written or a documentary segment made about a band whose political connection can't be denied, like some bands from 70s punk or 60s rock, this is then downplayed to some kind of general 'social discontent' or social flux. the actual political ideas of the artists in question are rarely mentioned and almost never debated.
saying the political ideas of an artist have no influence on his or her art is like saying the social and cultural situation of jamaica had no impact on the history of reggae music.
note that this not only goes for particular "leftradical" or other artists, but every artist, because every artist (and person) has political ideas.
art doesn't exist in a vacuum and just as everyone understands that the cultural background and personal biography of an artist has an impact on his or her art, it should be understood that the political opinions of the artist have an impact on the art - whether the artist wants it or not.
which brings us to the second point. when saying that art should be political - does that put down artists that are unpolitical? well again it is no "should", but every form of art *is* political. but, what this kind of statement hints at is that some art doesn't have an obvious political statement. but take oldschool gabber or early breakcore for example, even if there was no political statement visibly attached to a track, the raw power, anger, defiance of this music was a politically anarchist and nihilist statement by itself. even more so than a lot of outright political punk bands, for example. this music was anarchist in every way, so the call for political music takes nothing away from it. now there are a lot of electro, minimal, chic house type of producers. i never "bought" that they're unpolitical. they're celebrating luxury lifestyles in their music, expensive clothing, cars, clubs. it's in their lyrics. so they're completely capitalist, hyper-capitalist, to the point it becomes ridiculous. so a lot of people think this is unpolitical music, just for dancing and having a good time at the weekend, but it's deeply, very serious pro-capitalist music actually. but the point is, even if the producers had no intention to do political music, it would be political. because every music is political. if there would be a way, that a producer is really completely freeing himself of all conscious political influence in his music, then i think this would be very risky, because some random political content would fill this gap - because music *has* to be political - and influence his audience and this would be very dangerous. so maybe, in a way, we should be glad in a way that the common techno producers of this day are capitalists. but, of course, there are much better alternatives.
so, saying that music is political is not forcing anything, or devaluing anything. it's just stating a fact.
saying the political ideas of an artist have no influence on his or her art is like saying the social and cultural situation of jamaica had no impact on the history of reggae music.
note that this not only goes for particular "leftradical" or other artists, but every artist, because every artist (and person) has political ideas.
art doesn't exist in a vacuum and just as everyone understands that the cultural background and personal biography of an artist has an impact on his or her art, it should be understood that the political opinions of the artist have an impact on the art - whether the artist wants it or not.
which brings us to the second point. when saying that art should be political - does that put down artists that are unpolitical? well again it is no "should", but every form of art *is* political. but, what this kind of statement hints at is that some art doesn't have an obvious political statement. but take oldschool gabber or early breakcore for example, even if there was no political statement visibly attached to a track, the raw power, anger, defiance of this music was a politically anarchist and nihilist statement by itself. even more so than a lot of outright political punk bands, for example. this music was anarchist in every way, so the call for political music takes nothing away from it. now there are a lot of electro, minimal, chic house type of producers. i never "bought" that they're unpolitical. they're celebrating luxury lifestyles in their music, expensive clothing, cars, clubs. it's in their lyrics. so they're completely capitalist, hyper-capitalist, to the point it becomes ridiculous. so a lot of people think this is unpolitical music, just for dancing and having a good time at the weekend, but it's deeply, very serious pro-capitalist music actually. but the point is, even if the producers had no intention to do political music, it would be political. because every music is political. if there would be a way, that a producer is really completely freeing himself of all conscious political influence in his music, then i think this would be very risky, because some random political content would fill this gap - because music *has* to be political - and influence his audience and this would be very dangerous. so maybe, in a way, we should be glad in a way that the common techno producers of this day are capitalists. but, of course, there are much better alternatives.
so, saying that music is political is not forcing anything, or devaluing anything. it's just stating a fact.
Anarchy Is Real
i talked about anarchy and revolution, and these are not only true but possible; not only more possible than everything else but the only thing possible. the thing is, how do people see revolution and anarchism? they think one day, the president or chancellor or whatever is addressing people on TV or a stream, announcing he will step back in the light of some 'revolutionary forces' that have overpowered the state. this is unlikely, people realise this is unlikely and therefore think anarchism is a pipedream. it would be an official message by an official power. but that's not how anarchy works! there is always anarchy, there is always people who rebel, who fight for justice and freedom, who challenge oppression and exploitation, at any point in history, around the world. there is never 100% control by the state or capital or whatever. there is never control. even the sheltered kid by some politician or businessman or politician turns to drugs and fucks things up and gets wayward. often in a negative way but it shows there is never really any control. people do not really believe in society or the laws or politicians. who would not disregard the interest of (hierarchic) society for self gain? people know no government or political affiliation when the pure self interest is challenged. we live in an anarchy, but we live in the anarchy we were warned about; where people don't play by the rules, but in a very egotistical way. when they go against the morals of the masses or hierarchies they often do this for petty reasons or petty gains. still - this shows there is no control.
what we need to realise that anarchy is all around us; that anarchy is a daily choice we can make. but that it has to be a positive anarchy of mutual aid, of cooperation, of freedom. and we need to realise that we are already part of a large matrix of likeminded individuals who do this thing already, even if they don't call themselves anarchists, even if we don't know them - yet. this is the real revolution. let the president believe he still has some power; he never had any.
what we need to realise that anarchy is all around us; that anarchy is a daily choice we can make. but that it has to be a positive anarchy of mutual aid, of cooperation, of freedom. and we need to realise that we are already part of a large matrix of likeminded individuals who do this thing already, even if they don't call themselves anarchists, even if we don't know them - yet. this is the real revolution. let the president believe he still has some power; he never had any.
Towards Revolution
in the heyday of the experimental hardcore scene, when breakcore, acidcore, speedcore, were still developing, there was something in the sounds, parties, records, manifestos, but also above it, that is hard to put in words. an inspiration, something bigger, something great.
but i can try to put in in words nevertheless. society is ruled by rules, regulations, categories, hierarchies, orders and servants, but not only society, the whole culture, the whole world. in the 90s, when record after record came out, and we felt like we were moving forward and had a common goal, it felt like all those rules suddenly became bendable, as if the regulations turned liquid, as if the whole world was in a flux and it was suddenly possible to change the world and program a new path.
when all this crashed down a few years later, it felt as if that time was a feverish dream, a memory almost unreal when thinking of these impressions and motions. but, before that, anarchy had become possible. rebellion was true and revolution seemed round the corner. this then felt faded - quickly.
other points in history where similiar things happened were the sixties in america, or the punk explosion in the 70s.
it took me a long time to realise, that there was a wrong thought to it, when all this was dismissed so fast.
society is always fluid, and always changable - not only in 1968, 1977 or 1999. rebellion, anarchy, a true+just+pure society is possible at any point in history, at 1901, at 1981 and at 2011. a small group of man and woman can change the turn of the world and set a new destiny and unravel everything and built something new. the only people who still seem to know this is a small group (or large?) of capitalists, who turned society into capitalist 'paradise' in the last decades. but this is not necessarily so. anarchy is round the corner. revolution is round the corner - again. so better get things going.
but i can try to put in in words nevertheless. society is ruled by rules, regulations, categories, hierarchies, orders and servants, but not only society, the whole culture, the whole world. in the 90s, when record after record came out, and we felt like we were moving forward and had a common goal, it felt like all those rules suddenly became bendable, as if the regulations turned liquid, as if the whole world was in a flux and it was suddenly possible to change the world and program a new path.
when all this crashed down a few years later, it felt as if that time was a feverish dream, a memory almost unreal when thinking of these impressions and motions. but, before that, anarchy had become possible. rebellion was true and revolution seemed round the corner. this then felt faded - quickly.
other points in history where similiar things happened were the sixties in america, or the punk explosion in the 70s.
it took me a long time to realise, that there was a wrong thought to it, when all this was dismissed so fast.
society is always fluid, and always changable - not only in 1968, 1977 or 1999. rebellion, anarchy, a true+just+pure society is possible at any point in history, at 1901, at 1981 and at 2011. a small group of man and woman can change the turn of the world and set a new destiny and unravel everything and built something new. the only people who still seem to know this is a small group (or large?) of capitalists, who turned society into capitalist 'paradise' in the last decades. but this is not necessarily so. anarchy is round the corner. revolution is round the corner - again. so better get things going.
How To Incite Social Change By Purely Sonic Means
it is not accidental that "culture" has a double meaning: for works of art aswell as for a society, a civilization as a whole (as in: the egypt culture, the roman culture). farming, a millstone are techniques of culture; but a painting of a field or a windmill is "culture" too! the truth is that in any part of culture, the whole of culture is recreated. in a military society, the stories, poems will be about war. a seafaring nation will have fairytales and epics about the ocean; and so on. but this not a onesided transmission; the works of art shape and recreate the society at large too. therefore; changing the art of a society will inevitably change this society too. this is the reason dictators and oppressors always hated the free expression of art; and often feared it more than armed rebels and resistance.
so, let us look at music. every song is a model of the culture it was created in at large. by changing this model you give an impulse to change society at large. the question is: what is represented by what in the song, and exactly what is to be changed. this is, at first, a tough question. for example, the high frequencies of noise music have an unnerving, exciting, insurrectionary aspect. but the high frequencies of pop can transport the uneasiness that makes people cling to the promises of false "security" by the autocrats. the distorted midranges of rocknroll transport raw emotion that can fuel uprisings. yet the distorted midrange of nazirock supports primitive "urges" that fuel fascism. the pounding rhythm of early techno made you get going and get active; the monotonous rhythm of later techno makes you walk "the straight path" of society without diverging from it, in a monotonous fashion.
but there is one thing that is the key factor in insurrectionary music. it is song structure. it is no wonder that the most political decades of the 20th century, the 60s and 70s, gave rise to the most complicated song structures since classical music, in genres like psychedelic rock, progressive rock or krautrock. it is the one thing that defines all. the society which defines every aspect of life in a hierarchic way has pop music in which the whole structure is predefined. verse, middle 8, chorus... it's all the same in hundreds, in millions of songs. the structure of 99% of songs is so predictable, formatted, defined by rules, "by the book" that it takes all fun, all life - all revolution out of it. the first thing that happened when genres such as techno, house, drumnbass sold out was that all songs started to get similiar in structure (compare the ongoing beat and structure changes in early jungle to the monotonic "DJ friendly" later drumnbass tracks).
so, experiment in structure; combine silent with loud parts, flick through whole genres in a single track, morph frequency ranges. find every way to break up a solid and fixed structure. find the written and unwritten rules that define the structures of pop and other music in western culture, and break them, get rid of them. especially speed changes seem important to me; that's something that has nearly disappeared from music and is something that upsets the pop hierarchists the most. i cannot strain the urgency of that.
this way, you can create sonic pieces, that will have a revolutionary effect on society at large!
so, let us look at music. every song is a model of the culture it was created in at large. by changing this model you give an impulse to change society at large. the question is: what is represented by what in the song, and exactly what is to be changed. this is, at first, a tough question. for example, the high frequencies of noise music have an unnerving, exciting, insurrectionary aspect. but the high frequencies of pop can transport the uneasiness that makes people cling to the promises of false "security" by the autocrats. the distorted midranges of rocknroll transport raw emotion that can fuel uprisings. yet the distorted midrange of nazirock supports primitive "urges" that fuel fascism. the pounding rhythm of early techno made you get going and get active; the monotonous rhythm of later techno makes you walk "the straight path" of society without diverging from it, in a monotonous fashion.
but there is one thing that is the key factor in insurrectionary music. it is song structure. it is no wonder that the most political decades of the 20th century, the 60s and 70s, gave rise to the most complicated song structures since classical music, in genres like psychedelic rock, progressive rock or krautrock. it is the one thing that defines all. the society which defines every aspect of life in a hierarchic way has pop music in which the whole structure is predefined. verse, middle 8, chorus... it's all the same in hundreds, in millions of songs. the structure of 99% of songs is so predictable, formatted, defined by rules, "by the book" that it takes all fun, all life - all revolution out of it. the first thing that happened when genres such as techno, house, drumnbass sold out was that all songs started to get similiar in structure (compare the ongoing beat and structure changes in early jungle to the monotonic "DJ friendly" later drumnbass tracks).
so, experiment in structure; combine silent with loud parts, flick through whole genres in a single track, morph frequency ranges. find every way to break up a solid and fixed structure. find the written and unwritten rules that define the structures of pop and other music in western culture, and break them, get rid of them. especially speed changes seem important to me; that's something that has nearly disappeared from music and is something that upsets the pop hierarchists the most. i cannot strain the urgency of that.
this way, you can create sonic pieces, that will have a revolutionary effect on society at large!
Anarchy Is Possible
all revolutionary political, subcultural, artistic movements came to an end or were severely damaged at the end of the last decade of the 20th century, and at the beginning of the 21th century. the leftist movements withered, anarchism withered, the political part of punk withered, of hardcore, of breakcore, situationists, hippies, anticapitalists, everything.
in my opinion, one of the main reasons for this was - the internet. and this can be explained in a very simple way. with access to the internet, one can look up and read all about the various anarchism movements, the various attempts at revolution, the struggles - and how all of them failed. one can look up the political bands and artists of the past, and see how they either selled out when they got the chance, or succumb to infighting and selfishness - the old "human nature makes anarchism impossible" argument - or were run by crooks and impostors who used the revolutionary slogans for "self-gain" from the start.
it's the main reasoning one hears now when talking to people to that dislike anarchism or activism. "okay, society is crooked. but what do you want to do? start a revolution? we had revolutions in the past and they did not work. an uprising by the under classes? did not work either. create small communes, groups that are free from the system? it failed in the 60s and elsewhere. do a personal, individual rebellion inside society like the punks did? they all joined society again later - or ended in a worse ways".
that is the main thing that keeps everything in control. people do not believe in change, in positive change, because of this anymore.
but it is not true. it's a lie. everything above is a lie. *why* it is a lie could fill a whole book - maybe a whole library - and this would then be the book of revolution.
so let's just give - a few - examples.
first, the anarchists obviously do not believe in it. they're still here. we're still here. and we have reasons to believe that revolution, anarchy and utopia are still very much possible. so, there is not just one take on the above mentioned idea. there are various attitudes towards the idea that revolution failed. there is opposition to this idea. so how can you be sure that revolution really has to fail?
second, look at a typical biography of an anarchist in 19th, early 20th century. being introduced to anarchy as an adolescent, joining anarchist circles, breaking free from his family, maybe his social surrounding, to join the cause. doing propaganda and activism. and then get killed or imprisoned or something else during a riot or another struggle. there are thousands, millions of people who lived like that. now the early 21th bourgeois will say: see, "he failed. he better had chosen to join a bourgeois life, like we did!" but the truth, during his active days of struggle, he felt more free, more joyful, more ecstatic, more closer to the truth, than any bourgeois could, no matter if it's a billionaire or the president himself. he had a more fulfilling live than the rest. oh, his tragedy is sad - but this doesn't take away the fact that at least it was close to the truth.
of course i would not support such way of life in today's world - there are ways to resists without risking your life! but that does not take this point away.
third, and even more importantly. in western society, in the current days, we only really know about the last 200, 300 years of western culture, any maybe not even that. oh there is a lot of knowledge about past cultures, foreign cultures, but it is far from being conclusive. since hundreds of years, there has always been anthropologists, sociologists etc - not to mention more "crackpot"-style theorists - who claimed that in the past indeed societies that could be considered half, mostly, or fully(!) anarchist. tribal societies, sometimes even agricultural or advanced societies, or "short lived" (i.e. a matter of a few decades - or sometimes even centuries) enclaves. the point is not whether this is true or not - but that we *cannot* know. it might very likely be that there has been organized anarchy before. if the "primitivists" (which i often do not like very much) are right, in a sense mankind has lived much longer without government than with government. that mankind lived longer without capitalism and a ruling bourgeoisie is indisputable.
so how can then people be *sure* that anarchy is not possible with 'human nature'? how can they be sure of something that they do not know for sure?
this shows the whole weakness of modernism, of the modern age; that most of it's theories are only based on the short period of the modern age itself, and generally disregards anything else. it shows that there is a lot we don't know - especially about human history and human "nature" - and that people just disregard that!
so, yes. anarchy is true. anarchy works. the revolution is possible, even today. and the belief that this is not so - is to most part fake.
in my opinion, one of the main reasons for this was - the internet. and this can be explained in a very simple way. with access to the internet, one can look up and read all about the various anarchism movements, the various attempts at revolution, the struggles - and how all of them failed. one can look up the political bands and artists of the past, and see how they either selled out when they got the chance, or succumb to infighting and selfishness - the old "human nature makes anarchism impossible" argument - or were run by crooks and impostors who used the revolutionary slogans for "self-gain" from the start.
it's the main reasoning one hears now when talking to people to that dislike anarchism or activism. "okay, society is crooked. but what do you want to do? start a revolution? we had revolutions in the past and they did not work. an uprising by the under classes? did not work either. create small communes, groups that are free from the system? it failed in the 60s and elsewhere. do a personal, individual rebellion inside society like the punks did? they all joined society again later - or ended in a worse ways".
that is the main thing that keeps everything in control. people do not believe in change, in positive change, because of this anymore.
but it is not true. it's a lie. everything above is a lie. *why* it is a lie could fill a whole book - maybe a whole library - and this would then be the book of revolution.
so let's just give - a few - examples.
first, the anarchists obviously do not believe in it. they're still here. we're still here. and we have reasons to believe that revolution, anarchy and utopia are still very much possible. so, there is not just one take on the above mentioned idea. there are various attitudes towards the idea that revolution failed. there is opposition to this idea. so how can you be sure that revolution really has to fail?
second, look at a typical biography of an anarchist in 19th, early 20th century. being introduced to anarchy as an adolescent, joining anarchist circles, breaking free from his family, maybe his social surrounding, to join the cause. doing propaganda and activism. and then get killed or imprisoned or something else during a riot or another struggle. there are thousands, millions of people who lived like that. now the early 21th bourgeois will say: see, "he failed. he better had chosen to join a bourgeois life, like we did!" but the truth, during his active days of struggle, he felt more free, more joyful, more ecstatic, more closer to the truth, than any bourgeois could, no matter if it's a billionaire or the president himself. he had a more fulfilling live than the rest. oh, his tragedy is sad - but this doesn't take away the fact that at least it was close to the truth.
of course i would not support such way of life in today's world - there are ways to resists without risking your life! but that does not take this point away.
third, and even more importantly. in western society, in the current days, we only really know about the last 200, 300 years of western culture, any maybe not even that. oh there is a lot of knowledge about past cultures, foreign cultures, but it is far from being conclusive. since hundreds of years, there has always been anthropologists, sociologists etc - not to mention more "crackpot"-style theorists - who claimed that in the past indeed societies that could be considered half, mostly, or fully(!) anarchist. tribal societies, sometimes even agricultural or advanced societies, or "short lived" (i.e. a matter of a few decades - or sometimes even centuries) enclaves. the point is not whether this is true or not - but that we *cannot* know. it might very likely be that there has been organized anarchy before. if the "primitivists" (which i often do not like very much) are right, in a sense mankind has lived much longer without government than with government. that mankind lived longer without capitalism and a ruling bourgeoisie is indisputable.
so how can then people be *sure* that anarchy is not possible with 'human nature'? how can they be sure of something that they do not know for sure?
this shows the whole weakness of modernism, of the modern age; that most of it's theories are only based on the short period of the modern age itself, and generally disregards anything else. it shows that there is a lot we don't know - especially about human history and human "nature" - and that people just disregard that!
so, yes. anarchy is true. anarchy works. the revolution is possible, even today. and the belief that this is not so - is to most part fake.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)