There are / were 5 phases of doing music for me. When I started, I tried to make "Experimental Hardcore", i.e. using Speedcore, Breakcore stuff with avant-garde ideas and art in general. That stuff ended up on my Blut and Widerstand 12"s.
The second part was when I was influenced by the likes of Somatic Responses, Senical, The Joker... what I aimed at was basically trying to do a movie-score like sound with a big focus on ambiance and feelings... while still using Hardcore beats and methods. Turned out non-4/4 beats felt best for this approach. These tracks ended up on my Praxis 12" and the digital album in 2018. The third phase was me getting addicted to Techno, Rave, Oldschool sounds and I tried music for the dancefloor with a rhythmic groove and sounds, but still "Hardcore". That music ended up on my Black Monolith 12"s. After a 4 year break in producing I picked up right there and got even more into Techno and forward-pushing, hypnotic music, and this influenced my own tracks even more. This stuff ended up on Zuur and many other labels.
Then came the phase when I got really into New Wave, Gothic, Post-Punk and other music that focuses heavily on melodies and dark harmonies. I tried to make melody-centered music then and these sounds are on the releases I made in the last years. And right now I'm in my fifth phase, where I don't really have any such "beacons" to navigate by and just focus on the sound and the ideas, while trying to combine ideas from the previous phases into something new. This sound is for example on my Doomcore Initiative and Blackened Hardware releases.
On Beatmatching
I sometimes beatmatch my mixes, but most of the times I do not. There are multiple reasons for this. For one, I love multi-genre mixes. Mix some Black Metal, Gabber, Dark Ambient, Techno, whatever floats you boat, and be happy. Nonsense to attempt at beatmatching in that situation. I must admit my own mixes rarely were "that" multi-genre. But for example I like to mix Speedcore with Techno, Breakcore, maybe a bit of Acid, and slower break ("Industrial") tracks. The variation of speed again makes it rather pointless to go for beatmatching in that case.
Second, Techno is defined by perfect sync and rhythm. And I always considered this to be a blessing and a curse at the same time. On the one hand, it mimics endless droning and pounding to a shamanic dance ritual until you go into trance. But it also mimics the marching beat of Fascism and the machine-perfect sound of a Capitalist factory. What is the solution to this dilemma? My answer would be: have it both ways. Use sync-perfect rhythm elements, but also off-sync chaos in your tracks. When producing my own tracks I like to include elements that in some way subvert the straight 4/4 rhythm of the tracks.
When mixing, I welcome moments that break out of the Techno rigidness, when Bassdrums of two speeds clash with each other or there is a sudden speed change, or a disorderly crossfade.
To be honest, the idea of a beatmatched rhythm is totally averse to me, I listened to some mixes I done in the past, and I thought back then that I did beatmatch them well, only to hear they were very far from exact with the ears I have today. Of course I could use some auto-sync program or function to solve this for future mixes maybe, but I don't like that idea at all.
To be honest I always liked the idea of doing mixes in which two or more tracks run at different speeds next to each other for several minutes, creating a complex polyrhythm. Still on my to do list.
So, yeah, the idea of doing beatmatched mixes is something I'm not so keen on, and I prefer to use a different method.
Second, Techno is defined by perfect sync and rhythm. And I always considered this to be a blessing and a curse at the same time. On the one hand, it mimics endless droning and pounding to a shamanic dance ritual until you go into trance. But it also mimics the marching beat of Fascism and the machine-perfect sound of a Capitalist factory. What is the solution to this dilemma? My answer would be: have it both ways. Use sync-perfect rhythm elements, but also off-sync chaos in your tracks. When producing my own tracks I like to include elements that in some way subvert the straight 4/4 rhythm of the tracks.
When mixing, I welcome moments that break out of the Techno rigidness, when Bassdrums of two speeds clash with each other or there is a sudden speed change, or a disorderly crossfade.
To be honest, the idea of a beatmatched rhythm is totally averse to me, I listened to some mixes I done in the past, and I thought back then that I did beatmatch them well, only to hear they were very far from exact with the ears I have today. Of course I could use some auto-sync program or function to solve this for future mixes maybe, but I don't like that idea at all.
To be honest I always liked the idea of doing mixes in which two or more tracks run at different speeds next to each other for several minutes, creating a complex polyrhythm. Still on my to do list.
So, yeah, the idea of doing beatmatched mixes is something I'm not so keen on, and I prefer to use a different method.
School Is Hell
"Because hell, hell is for children
And you know that their little lives can become such a mess" - Pat Benetar
"Hey, Teachers, leave them kids alone" - Pink Floyd
I hate nothing more than when there is a movie like this: a "troubled" kid has lots of problems in life and his social surrounding, then some teacher at school "believes" in him and takes care of him, and finally he can reach something good in his life and goes from a lower class to a middle (or even upper) class future.
Real school is nothing like that.
School is the place where kids get raped by their teachers (and other kids). School is the place where kids get killed or crippled by their bullies. School is the place that mentally fucks you up for the rest of your life.
and if there is one thing that school is not: a place for "social mobility".
School sent lower class kids to a lower class future, middle class kids to a middle class future and upper class kids to the upper class.
At my school, the kids of "poor" parents were always blamed for everything negative and bad that happened; and the teachers always gave them the vibe: "you're from poor parents, you'll never amount to anything in life anyway, so why should we waste our time on you."
While there was a middle class kid that had teachers as parents, and when he got into fights etc, he was never held responsible for it, "of course the other kids must have started the fight", "he is innocent", etc. It was always token care he would go for a middle class position later in life.
If there is some social mobility in schools, it's downwards: even middle or upper class kids *may* be sent to the lower class if they bring a rebel streak to school.
Same goes for all those teenage dramedy series, where school life is portrayed as being cozy and the only worry you have is about your first love etc; all the violence inherent in the public school system is completely blanked out in these shows.
School is hell.
And you know that their little lives can become such a mess" - Pat Benetar
"Hey, Teachers, leave them kids alone" - Pink Floyd
I hate nothing more than when there is a movie like this: a "troubled" kid has lots of problems in life and his social surrounding, then some teacher at school "believes" in him and takes care of him, and finally he can reach something good in his life and goes from a lower class to a middle (or even upper) class future.
Real school is nothing like that.
School is the place where kids get raped by their teachers (and other kids). School is the place where kids get killed or crippled by their bullies. School is the place that mentally fucks you up for the rest of your life.
and if there is one thing that school is not: a place for "social mobility".
School sent lower class kids to a lower class future, middle class kids to a middle class future and upper class kids to the upper class.
At my school, the kids of "poor" parents were always blamed for everything negative and bad that happened; and the teachers always gave them the vibe: "you're from poor parents, you'll never amount to anything in life anyway, so why should we waste our time on you."
While there was a middle class kid that had teachers as parents, and when he got into fights etc, he was never held responsible for it, "of course the other kids must have started the fight", "he is innocent", etc. It was always token care he would go for a middle class position later in life.
If there is some social mobility in schools, it's downwards: even middle or upper class kids *may* be sent to the lower class if they bring a rebel streak to school.
Same goes for all those teenage dramedy series, where school life is portrayed as being cozy and the only worry you have is about your first love etc; all the violence inherent in the public school system is completely blanked out in these shows.
School is hell.
The War On Symbols - Years later
A few years ago, I called for a "War On Symbols" in a traditional Post-Situationist way. The idea was to attack authority and big business not on a rational way, for example by Marxist critique, but on a sub-conscious, emotional, symbolic, instinct driven, *specifically anti-rational* way.
The results were *very* interesting to me.
Let's look at a progressive cause, let's say feminism.
There is something to be observed how this unwinds on social media.
If someone makes a rational post *for* feminism, there will likely arguments exchanged pro and con, and maybe a few angry posts. Similar, if someone makes a "rational" post against it.
If someone makes a rational post that also uses symbolism, something subliminal, subconscious, there will be rational discourse and lots of anger. Similar with an anti-feminist post of the same level, but the anger will likely be less.
Now if someone makes an anti-feminist post on a symbolic level *that is non-rational*, there will be lots of arguing and fighting, and less rational discourse. But if someone makes a symbolic post *for* feminism that is anti-rational, all hell will brake loose and there will likely be a shit storm and worse.
I'm giving the average reactions here; of course there were already shit storms for anti-feminist symbolic posts if they reach a large enough audience, and so on, and other examples that differed from it. But I'm talking about the average outcome.
What do we learn from this?
First, the right wing is already "tight in the saddle". On average social media, pro-right wing posts will generate much less confrontational reactions than anti-right wing ones. On many topics the right wing opinion is the "accepted one".
Second, so what about the options of anti-rational and symbolic activism?
I thought the hostile reactions implied that the rational way is indeed the better way to walk. Because people react better to rational discourse than to "attacks" aimed at the sublime and subconscious.
But then I read a comment by Jodorowsky that Symbolism makes people angry and afraid, because they are used to fend off rational criticism to their beliefs; but they are defenseless against the use of symbolism, and that's why they freak out, because they can not really protect themselves against it.
So, the use of anti-rational and subliminal tactics might prove very worthwhile in political and social activism. If you are willing to endure going through some shit storms.
The results were *very* interesting to me.
Let's look at a progressive cause, let's say feminism.
There is something to be observed how this unwinds on social media.
If someone makes a rational post *for* feminism, there will likely arguments exchanged pro and con, and maybe a few angry posts. Similar, if someone makes a "rational" post against it.
If someone makes a rational post that also uses symbolism, something subliminal, subconscious, there will be rational discourse and lots of anger. Similar with an anti-feminist post of the same level, but the anger will likely be less.
Now if someone makes an anti-feminist post on a symbolic level *that is non-rational*, there will be lots of arguing and fighting, and less rational discourse. But if someone makes a symbolic post *for* feminism that is anti-rational, all hell will brake loose and there will likely be a shit storm and worse.
I'm giving the average reactions here; of course there were already shit storms for anti-feminist symbolic posts if they reach a large enough audience, and so on, and other examples that differed from it. But I'm talking about the average outcome.
What do we learn from this?
First, the right wing is already "tight in the saddle". On average social media, pro-right wing posts will generate much less confrontational reactions than anti-right wing ones. On many topics the right wing opinion is the "accepted one".
Second, so what about the options of anti-rational and symbolic activism?
I thought the hostile reactions implied that the rational way is indeed the better way to walk. Because people react better to rational discourse than to "attacks" aimed at the sublime and subconscious.
But then I read a comment by Jodorowsky that Symbolism makes people angry and afraid, because they are used to fend off rational criticism to their beliefs; but they are defenseless against the use of symbolism, and that's why they freak out, because they can not really protect themselves against it.
So, the use of anti-rational and subliminal tactics might prove very worthwhile in political and social activism. If you are willing to endure going through some shit storms.
The Next Hardcore Revolution
A lot of people in the 90s thought Hardcore Techno, Breakcore or "Digital Hardcore" would lead to a political revolution; others might have not had such "high goals" mind but nevertheless thought Hardcore would take the world by storm, and Gabber and Hardcore would make a big impact and especially life would continue to be just a "big party"; others had even lesser objects of desire but at least thought they somehow could live inside the "hardcore world" as a DJ and producer etc. for the rest of their life and would not have to worry about such issues like having a job or caring much about money; living the "artist life" for good.
Nearly all of these people I knew eventually defected from these goals when they got older; and very much joined the boring "everyday world" they did despise so much when they were young.
I too thought all these concepts and ideas failed by the time around the millennium; and thought these things would be impossible to attain by now.
But when I got older, I realized this was not a rational response at all. It's like a scientist who designs a new plane, or train, or rocket. The first unmanned prototype blows up. A setback, yes, even a big setback. But does that mean he or she has to give up? Does it mean the project of designing a new rocket *has* to fail? No, in most cases the scientist will continue to work on it, and if the second prototype doesn't work, maybe the third or the fifth. The history of science is full of examples of technologies and people that failed at first, but the scientific idea turned right in the end (think of the failed attempts at "flying" before the first plane took of for good").
And this is very true for us too. The Hardcore Revolution didn't happen in 1999. But that does not mean it can not happen now, or in the future. We failed - once. So let's get up and try again. Return to our ideals and make sure they come true this time.
Nearly all of these people I knew eventually defected from these goals when they got older; and very much joined the boring "everyday world" they did despise so much when they were young.
I too thought all these concepts and ideas failed by the time around the millennium; and thought these things would be impossible to attain by now.
But when I got older, I realized this was not a rational response at all. It's like a scientist who designs a new plane, or train, or rocket. The first unmanned prototype blows up. A setback, yes, even a big setback. But does that mean he or she has to give up? Does it mean the project of designing a new rocket *has* to fail? No, in most cases the scientist will continue to work on it, and if the second prototype doesn't work, maybe the third or the fifth. The history of science is full of examples of technologies and people that failed at first, but the scientific idea turned right in the end (think of the failed attempts at "flying" before the first plane took of for good").
And this is very true for us too. The Hardcore Revolution didn't happen in 1999. But that does not mean it can not happen now, or in the future. We failed - once. So let's get up and try again. Return to our ideals and make sure they come true this time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)