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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)