this is an important point, because right now there are a lot of anarchists and revolutionaries who think we live in times that are not rebellious at all, and hope for a "change of times" and wonder if that change ever comes; when they could incite this change by themselves! if a dozen artists get together, and they're clever enough, they could not only incite another 60s era, but a full scale utopian anarchist revolution without any problem.
Reversal Of Facts
the reversal of facts in our "modern times" can be seen in how time is truncated into certain "eras". for example: the era of the 60s was full of rebellion and social change, and this let certain authors and musicians thrive and they did the best work in that era. the truth is the other way round: before and in the 60s authors and artists created politically radical content and this led to the rebellion and uprising of the 60s.
this is an important point, because right now there are a lot of anarchists and revolutionaries who think we live in times that are not rebellious at all, and hope for a "change of times" and wonder if that change ever comes; when they could incite this change by themselves! if a dozen artists get together, and they're clever enough, they could not only incite another 60s era, but a full scale utopian anarchist revolution without any problem.
this is an important point, because right now there are a lot of anarchists and revolutionaries who think we live in times that are not rebellious at all, and hope for a "change of times" and wonder if that change ever comes; when they could incite this change by themselves! if a dozen artists get together, and they're clever enough, they could not only incite another 60s era, but a full scale utopian anarchist revolution without any problem.
Reach
Some people say social media makes it easier to reach people as an artist. But this is not true. To talk from my own experience. Before the days of social media and youtube etc. When I had my first vinyl out on Blut Records. That already put me on the map in the scene. A few weeks later I had my first gig at the Fuckparade, and was already approached by people who had heard it and asked me about it. I played it to Scud and Society Suckers and lots of other people. I don't say this to boast, but to make a point: would a first release by an artist on a netlabel posted on Facebook put him or her "on the map" in the Hardcore scene? It could happen. But it is very unlikely... It might just get ignored, or seen as just another release and passed by.
The truth about social networks is that it works for artists that build their position *outside* the social networks. There are two major groups for this: artists who had a "career" before the social media hype, and even better, before the internet spread. All those 80s and early 90s artists, maybe even 70s and 50s. These people *can* reach a lot of people with the social media. And artists that have the backing of big music industry, once again something that exists outside of Facebook and Instagram etc., all the Lady Gagas and Adeles etc.
To this day, half the feedback I get to my sound is based on my vinyl releases I did over 15 years ago, before the rise of social media. Even though I had hundreds of digital releases since then!
And I avoided Facebook for a long time. People told me I could spread my music on Facebook more easily. But the truth is that by spreading it outside of Facebook, I made it clear I'm not a "Facebook Artist" and that gave a boost to my output, so I reached much more people when I finally came onto Facebook than if I'd already been earlier. And the longer I'm on Facebook the less feedback positive and negative (and interest?) I get to my sound. Again, not to boast, but to make this point.
Social Media is a very two-edged sword especially for artists and it can be hard to walk this edge successfully.
The truth about social networks is that it works for artists that build their position *outside* the social networks. There are two major groups for this: artists who had a "career" before the social media hype, and even better, before the internet spread. All those 80s and early 90s artists, maybe even 70s and 50s. These people *can* reach a lot of people with the social media. And artists that have the backing of big music industry, once again something that exists outside of Facebook and Instagram etc., all the Lady Gagas and Adeles etc.
To this day, half the feedback I get to my sound is based on my vinyl releases I did over 15 years ago, before the rise of social media. Even though I had hundreds of digital releases since then!
And I avoided Facebook for a long time. People told me I could spread my music on Facebook more easily. But the truth is that by spreading it outside of Facebook, I made it clear I'm not a "Facebook Artist" and that gave a boost to my output, so I reached much more people when I finally came onto Facebook than if I'd already been earlier. And the longer I'm on Facebook the less feedback positive and negative (and interest?) I get to my sound. Again, not to boast, but to make this point.
Social Media is a very two-edged sword especially for artists and it can be hard to walk this edge successfully.
The Power Of Imagination
You can imagine that you are rich, or traveling the universe, or be the president of the world, or have a secret room full of gold, or whatever you wish and choose and desire. You can do this regardless of your life situation, at night, in prison, maybe even in daydreaming. So why should you ever be sad about something? No matter if you're sick or poor or lonely or in whatever trouble you are in, you can always imagine something wonderful and great, imagine yourself to experience something wonderful and great. Why ever complain, why ever feel not satisfied? You could imagine the perfect life.
The answer by many will be: 'because something that is imagined is not as strong, as powerful, as intense, has not the same impact on the mind and the senses, as something that is very much real'. 'Imagining yourself to be married to a pop idol is not the same as this being really the case'.
But this is not true. It's like giving a child a bicycle and saying, if you ride this bicycle, you can get farther and easier ahead to destinations you might hardly reach by foot, and the child tries to ride the bicycle but falls down after a few meters and is hurt, and says, 'this is much worse than going by foot'. But this only happened because the kid did not know yet how to properly use a bicycle. It has to learn it.
And the same way goes for human imagination. You have to learn how to use your imagination. If you managed to do so, imagining yourself to be married to a pop star or being rich or a galactic traveler will not only feel as powerful and intense as wonderful as if this would really be the case, it will feel *better*, much much better and more intense than the real thing. So exercise your imagination, learn how to use it, spend time on it, a lot of time, and you will slowly get to this point. And then you will be free of whatever situation you are in in real life and you can always escape to your imagination wherever you are, however you feel, no matter what problems you are in.
Of course, the first step in learning how to imagine things properly is to believe that this is true, that human imagination is really stronger than any real world experience you could be in.
Artist of all ages, consciously or subconsciously always knew this. Do not songs, movies, books touch you in more profound and deeper ways that your everyday experience? This is because they aim at your imagination, not at your "real world". Is not a song about heartbreak much more pleasurable than real heartbreak? Can not a love song be more faithful and true than a romantic affair you experienced in real life? Of course this is so. And this is the power of imagination.
So who cares about sadness and trouble. Train your imagination, learn to imagine properly.
And you will become free.
The answer by many will be: 'because something that is imagined is not as strong, as powerful, as intense, has not the same impact on the mind and the senses, as something that is very much real'. 'Imagining yourself to be married to a pop idol is not the same as this being really the case'.
But this is not true. It's like giving a child a bicycle and saying, if you ride this bicycle, you can get farther and easier ahead to destinations you might hardly reach by foot, and the child tries to ride the bicycle but falls down after a few meters and is hurt, and says, 'this is much worse than going by foot'. But this only happened because the kid did not know yet how to properly use a bicycle. It has to learn it.
And the same way goes for human imagination. You have to learn how to use your imagination. If you managed to do so, imagining yourself to be married to a pop star or being rich or a galactic traveler will not only feel as powerful and intense as wonderful as if this would really be the case, it will feel *better*, much much better and more intense than the real thing. So exercise your imagination, learn how to use it, spend time on it, a lot of time, and you will slowly get to this point. And then you will be free of whatever situation you are in in real life and you can always escape to your imagination wherever you are, however you feel, no matter what problems you are in.
Of course, the first step in learning how to imagine things properly is to believe that this is true, that human imagination is really stronger than any real world experience you could be in.
Artist of all ages, consciously or subconsciously always knew this. Do not songs, movies, books touch you in more profound and deeper ways that your everyday experience? This is because they aim at your imagination, not at your "real world". Is not a song about heartbreak much more pleasurable than real heartbreak? Can not a love song be more faithful and true than a romantic affair you experienced in real life? Of course this is so. And this is the power of imagination.
So who cares about sadness and trouble. Train your imagination, learn to imagine properly.
And you will become free.
On Sharing
One of the reasons I give most of my music away for free is that this is one of the very few "basic and simple" things you can do against Capitalism. Sharing something for free - instead of selling something for money. Not making an economical calculation out of what you do, not "thinking economically" at all - just going with the flow. Of course some will say, 'but artists have to make a living', but seriously, which artist in Doomcore or Speedcore or Breakcore can make a living out of his meager "sales"? Maybe 5, maybe 6 persons.
While this is indeed a very simple tactic, it is nevertheless very effective. Because the outcry against any Anti-Capitalist tactics will always be: It won't work, you will end up helping the enemy or joining his force etc. And this is true. Say, an artist wants to spread a "riot image". And he succeeds with it! Then Capitalism can still very quickly hijack and use this for its own ends. Cash in on the riot image, make "riot wear clothes", sell "riot" music, make more TV shows about riots!
Capitalism still works even if everyone on Earth would wear "riot wear clothes".
But Capitalism will no longer exist if everyone shared for free.
While this is indeed a very simple tactic, it is nevertheless very effective. Because the outcry against any Anti-Capitalist tactics will always be: It won't work, you will end up helping the enemy or joining his force etc. And this is true. Say, an artist wants to spread a "riot image". And he succeeds with it! Then Capitalism can still very quickly hijack and use this for its own ends. Cash in on the riot image, make "riot wear clothes", sell "riot" music, make more TV shows about riots!
Capitalism still works even if everyone on Earth would wear "riot wear clothes".
But Capitalism will no longer exist if everyone shared for free.
Social Isolation
Due to my mental health problems, I lived some time in near total social isolation (minus internet and the online world). On the other hand, during the time I played gigs at Tresor etc. I lived a very tangible social life with plenty of friends and meetings and parties.
But looking back, the lenghty time alone was much better for me. It's when I did my best tracks and music. The social is just not "it".
But looking back, the lenghty time alone was much better for me. It's when I did my best tracks and music. The social is just not "it".
The End Of Sexual Liberation
The "Sexual-Political Organization (SexPol)" was an organization by Wilhelm Reich that tried to combine sexual liberation and generally topics of sexuality with political activism. This was long before Reich got "mad" and tried to shoot "orgone rays" with metal pipes up into the sky to dissolve thunderclouds - and to wane off UFOs that were threatening peace on earth - in his mind.
With SexPol, he was not alone. Sexual liberation was for a long time part of the radical left and Anarchism. Even in the 19th century they already championed "free love" and other issues. With the 1960s movements, sexual liberation often became the major focus of leftist and countercultural movements.
But I think we totally lost in this regard. Sexual liberation no longer seems possible. There are two reasons for this. Capitalism, especially by using its media (including its porn industry), has seized total control of human sexuality, and controls it in each and every regard. The new, "modern" sexual archetype is the 'rich and powerful (young or old) politically conservative or fascist man'. No longer the rebel, or the anarchist, or the hippie with unwashed hair. But there was also a threat from inside. Did the hippies or the Anarchists really bring sexual liberation to the people? Was there not a divide between noble talk and the real actions (talking about sex and having sex are obviously not the same)? And worse than that. There was for example a pedophile problem in both the American and European post-60s left, that the left decided to close its eyes to. Even Wilhelm Reich himself once stated he dissolved "SexPol" because of sexual misconduct that happened in these organizations.
I feel this in the end totally discredited the sexual liberation movements in the eye of the public.
So, we lost this battle - likely for quite some time. In the political struggle, it might be wiser to focus on other things (that might be more important) than sexuality in the moment. Will this ever be different? Maybe. But maybe not.
With SexPol, he was not alone. Sexual liberation was for a long time part of the radical left and Anarchism. Even in the 19th century they already championed "free love" and other issues. With the 1960s movements, sexual liberation often became the major focus of leftist and countercultural movements.
But I think we totally lost in this regard. Sexual liberation no longer seems possible. There are two reasons for this. Capitalism, especially by using its media (including its porn industry), has seized total control of human sexuality, and controls it in each and every regard. The new, "modern" sexual archetype is the 'rich and powerful (young or old) politically conservative or fascist man'. No longer the rebel, or the anarchist, or the hippie with unwashed hair. But there was also a threat from inside. Did the hippies or the Anarchists really bring sexual liberation to the people? Was there not a divide between noble talk and the real actions (talking about sex and having sex are obviously not the same)? And worse than that. There was for example a pedophile problem in both the American and European post-60s left, that the left decided to close its eyes to. Even Wilhelm Reich himself once stated he dissolved "SexPol" because of sexual misconduct that happened in these organizations.
I feel this in the end totally discredited the sexual liberation movements in the eye of the public.
So, we lost this battle - likely for quite some time. In the political struggle, it might be wiser to focus on other things (that might be more important) than sexuality in the moment. Will this ever be different? Maybe. But maybe not.
On The Social
I said I was influenced by Hakim Bey. He always championed the social. He wrote it was no accident that there was an attack on the social with the likes of Thatcher - "There is no such thing as society" - at the same time as the rise of computers and electronic networks in the 80s - both leading way to a painful "individualism".
He wrote that if you managed to meet every week with a group of people that are "not your family or 'the people you know at work'", you already have attained the revolution - because you have fought the prime anti-social force of organized power that splits communities and the world in small peaces. Workplace and family were excluded as they were already "self-alienated" groups that were no harm to power, instead complicit with it.
Nowadays a lot more groups could be added to this category. And we have reached a situation were indeed many, many people spent their lives almost entirely at the workplace and their family - is the victory of "power" total?
So what I tried to do with my activities in the Hardcore scene was to give room to the social. That's why I was involved in the AuditivSex fanzine, the Hamburg Hardcore Radio, the All-Out Demolition! parties and so on - to give room for people to meet each other. For freaks to meet other freaks. To create a free community.
Now, I quickly realized this was no easy task. Because the people I met in Hardcore, especially end of the 90s and early 2000s, weren't exactly "social butterflies". They were loner types, often socially anxious or just liked to keep to themselves.
But, maybe paradoxically, at the same time, they were not uninterested in the social. So with the radio, or with parties, I indeed met weekly with people that were not "the people I know at work or my family". And, was it the revolution?
Yes, it was. I never felt so magical in my life. There was a true community of freaks that exchanged ideas and debates and just partying, and of course most of all, great music. There was a free exchange of emotions and thoughts that was not based on a community that stifled, but instead embraced each others individualism.
I don't say this to "boast", but to show that it was really possible.
Nowadays, I feel the rise of social media "paradoxically" is an even more severe attack on the social, and it gave rise to a very toxic all-encompassing false "individualism". False individualism is now marketed as a kind of "salvation" - people longing to be lonely. But in my opinion this is because of the toxic "herd mentality" - a false social - that is existing in society and the media now, that really makes it seem better to be "alone".
Is it still possible to fight this? What way should one choose? With the radio station, for example, real people met at a real location in space and time and a real contact was there. Could the same achieved by creating a Facebook group, for example? Likely not.
With my own activity in the Hardcore scene, I feel I'm part of a community again - again a very magic community. But it was years of struggling, is almost invisible, more fragile than how it was in 2000.
But, there must be a way. Even if we have to find new methods. The fight will continue.
He wrote that if you managed to meet every week with a group of people that are "not your family or 'the people you know at work'", you already have attained the revolution - because you have fought the prime anti-social force of organized power that splits communities and the world in small peaces. Workplace and family were excluded as they were already "self-alienated" groups that were no harm to power, instead complicit with it.
Nowadays a lot more groups could be added to this category. And we have reached a situation were indeed many, many people spent their lives almost entirely at the workplace and their family - is the victory of "power" total?
So what I tried to do with my activities in the Hardcore scene was to give room to the social. That's why I was involved in the AuditivSex fanzine, the Hamburg Hardcore Radio, the All-Out Demolition! parties and so on - to give room for people to meet each other. For freaks to meet other freaks. To create a free community.
Now, I quickly realized this was no easy task. Because the people I met in Hardcore, especially end of the 90s and early 2000s, weren't exactly "social butterflies". They were loner types, often socially anxious or just liked to keep to themselves.
But, maybe paradoxically, at the same time, they were not uninterested in the social. So with the radio, or with parties, I indeed met weekly with people that were not "the people I know at work or my family". And, was it the revolution?
Yes, it was. I never felt so magical in my life. There was a true community of freaks that exchanged ideas and debates and just partying, and of course most of all, great music. There was a free exchange of emotions and thoughts that was not based on a community that stifled, but instead embraced each others individualism.
I don't say this to "boast", but to show that it was really possible.
Nowadays, I feel the rise of social media "paradoxically" is an even more severe attack on the social, and it gave rise to a very toxic all-encompassing false "individualism". False individualism is now marketed as a kind of "salvation" - people longing to be lonely. But in my opinion this is because of the toxic "herd mentality" - a false social - that is existing in society and the media now, that really makes it seem better to be "alone".
Is it still possible to fight this? What way should one choose? With the radio station, for example, real people met at a real location in space and time and a real contact was there. Could the same achieved by creating a Facebook group, for example? Likely not.
With my own activity in the Hardcore scene, I feel I'm part of a community again - again a very magic community. But it was years of struggling, is almost invisible, more fragile than how it was in 2000.
But, there must be a way. Even if we have to find new methods. The fight will continue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)