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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)