This year I talked about my mental health problems, which might not be directly related to my music. But I think it's important issues like these come to the public and it does not remain taboo to talk about them.
And, on the other hand, they are indeed very much connected to my music. I'm influenced by the anti-psychiatry movements that gained momentum in the 60s decade of the last century; especially the idea that "mental health" is not a black and white thing; that there is no clear line between sane and insane; between society and an individual's problems; that mental illness is not 100% bad or 100% good, but something inbetween.
To be more exact, what happened is this; my problems with anxiety that started as a kid sent me into what is called "altered states" once in a while; some enter these states by drugs; I entered them by fear and trauma. And from these states, I took all the ideas for my music. My mental health problems sent me to that place, like others would have used drugs to get there, again. I'm sure some people think is a fucked up way, using this to get inspired for art. But to me it made sense. It was the best I could do; and at the same time, my music helped me to get a grip on my mental health problems.
The Future Of The World
In the future, there will be no more inequality, no oppression, no hierarchies, no war in human society. Most people would say this idea is insane; that it could not be this way; but it is the truth; and it is only rational.
For inequality - to take an example - is an idea; a human idea; and how could an idea last forever?
Take the idea that the catholic church should be the main political power in Europe; this was indeed a, let's call it "powerful", idea; it lasted for a millennium; but eventually that idea was crushed and it faded away. Not to mention even lesser ideas. There are not much supporters of "Attila-ism" these days, are there? That want to recreat the "glory" or power of the days of Attila The Hun and turn society into how it was like then. Or Cleopatra-ism, or any other example like this. Yet these people had powerful empires in their time, but this is all part of history now. And so, inequality will only be part of history one day.
Now you may say, ideas like this never totally go away, and in the future there might be some attempts to revive the Ottoman Empire or Austro-Hungarian reign and so on. Yes, it could be. But let's put it this way, in the next 10,000 years the future for Attilaism doesn't look too bright.
I could imagine somewhere in the world a small group of persons sitting for a meeting that are plotting for the "second coming" of Attila The Hun. Maybe, in the same way, in our future society a small group is longing for the return of social inequality. But that's about it then.
But, you might say, there is a misunderstanding. Inequality is not just an idea. It's a part of human order, of social order. Well, in the past gathering fruit and hunting game were the very center of human order. Or the majority of the population being busy with farming or cutting wood to build their homes. This changed. The human order changed. The habit of gathering fruits changed, so the habit of having inequality in society will change too. Nothing really lasts in the human realm. (Again, if you say, on the fringes of the world people still gather fruit to live, let's keep with my amendment of the initial claim; yeah maybe in the future, on the fringes people will still long for inequality.).
Now you might say, there are things that can't be avoided in human life, like diseases and illness, and inequality is like that. But inequality *can* be avoided. When looking at the world today it's obvious that wealth and power and is distributed in an (extremely) unequal way and it's easy to come to the conclusion that wealth and power could be redistributed. In meager efforts it has been done already, like the distributing of the sole power of the king to democratically elected officials (not the end solution we want, but maybe a step in the right direction).
No no no, you might now say, the point is inequality is not an idea, a thought. It is something real, it's part of nature. Well, trees or plants are part of nature. Can you point me to this "real" inequality like you could point to a tree? Is it growing somewhere out of the ground like a tree? Or does it physically exist in some else way? Can you cut this inequality with a knife, does it have inequality particles, inequality atoms?
Of course inequality is not something real. It's an abstract concept, an idea, a thought, something in your head, in your brain. And ideas will be forgotten one day or at least lose their power. Even if it takes a long time.
The point is that those who believe that inequality will last are more or less - insane. They confuse an idea, that is thought, with something real, that physically exists. They think inequality as an idea, but just not "an" idea, it's a *real* idea! An idea existing in nature, in the real world, and like this world, it will last! A real part of human nature that will stay with human nature as long as humans exist. And this is insane.
Inequality is just an idea, an idea that can't last forever, that won't be "believed" forever, and when this believe withers away, and thus when it withers away, there will be no more inequality in human society, and that is the rational way to see it, and the same goes for oppression and hierarchy and wars and so on - the future will see a world that is free of these.
For inequality - to take an example - is an idea; a human idea; and how could an idea last forever?
Take the idea that the catholic church should be the main political power in Europe; this was indeed a, let's call it "powerful", idea; it lasted for a millennium; but eventually that idea was crushed and it faded away. Not to mention even lesser ideas. There are not much supporters of "Attila-ism" these days, are there? That want to recreat the "glory" or power of the days of Attila The Hun and turn society into how it was like then. Or Cleopatra-ism, or any other example like this. Yet these people had powerful empires in their time, but this is all part of history now. And so, inequality will only be part of history one day.
Now you may say, ideas like this never totally go away, and in the future there might be some attempts to revive the Ottoman Empire or Austro-Hungarian reign and so on. Yes, it could be. But let's put it this way, in the next 10,000 years the future for Attilaism doesn't look too bright.
I could imagine somewhere in the world a small group of persons sitting for a meeting that are plotting for the "second coming" of Attila The Hun. Maybe, in the same way, in our future society a small group is longing for the return of social inequality. But that's about it then.
But, you might say, there is a misunderstanding. Inequality is not just an idea. It's a part of human order, of social order. Well, in the past gathering fruit and hunting game were the very center of human order. Or the majority of the population being busy with farming or cutting wood to build their homes. This changed. The human order changed. The habit of gathering fruits changed, so the habit of having inequality in society will change too. Nothing really lasts in the human realm. (Again, if you say, on the fringes of the world people still gather fruit to live, let's keep with my amendment of the initial claim; yeah maybe in the future, on the fringes people will still long for inequality.).
Now you might say, there are things that can't be avoided in human life, like diseases and illness, and inequality is like that. But inequality *can* be avoided. When looking at the world today it's obvious that wealth and power and is distributed in an (extremely) unequal way and it's easy to come to the conclusion that wealth and power could be redistributed. In meager efforts it has been done already, like the distributing of the sole power of the king to democratically elected officials (not the end solution we want, but maybe a step in the right direction).
No no no, you might now say, the point is inequality is not an idea, a thought. It is something real, it's part of nature. Well, trees or plants are part of nature. Can you point me to this "real" inequality like you could point to a tree? Is it growing somewhere out of the ground like a tree? Or does it physically exist in some else way? Can you cut this inequality with a knife, does it have inequality particles, inequality atoms?
Of course inequality is not something real. It's an abstract concept, an idea, a thought, something in your head, in your brain. And ideas will be forgotten one day or at least lose their power. Even if it takes a long time.
The point is that those who believe that inequality will last are more or less - insane. They confuse an idea, that is thought, with something real, that physically exists. They think inequality as an idea, but just not "an" idea, it's a *real* idea! An idea existing in nature, in the real world, and like this world, it will last! A real part of human nature that will stay with human nature as long as humans exist. And this is insane.
Inequality is just an idea, an idea that can't last forever, that won't be "believed" forever, and when this believe withers away, and thus when it withers away, there will be no more inequality in human society, and that is the rational way to see it, and the same goes for oppression and hierarchy and wars and so on - the future will see a world that is free of these.
Art And Social Change - Again
I've been asked why and how art could change the world, could change society.
The problem here is what I call the "Western Art Anomaly"; because in other cultures, both in different times and different locations, people were and are aware that art could change society - it could change a lot (for example kings that arrested artists; because they know their art could cost them their crown. Priests that persecuted artists; because they knew their art could cost them their power).
But in contemporary western society, it is is no longer understood what art is. They think, art, music, movies, that is something you "consume" in your pastime and you have fun with it and maybe dance to it or chill-out or whatever, and you pay money for it and it gives you a good time, and maybe, just maybe, some deep thoughts too!
The common western person behaves like cavemen who discovered a working spaceship; but they don't understand how to fly it, so they just use it to climb on it and jump down from it and think, hey this is a good time.
So what is art exactly? Art is "it". It's the thing. It's the holy grail, it could take you to the stars - metaphorically speaking. Art is where the sky and earth meet. It's the base of society, of politics, and civilization, but it goes beyond them. It is a cultural code that programs society. If you change this code, you can change society.
It's no wonder "culture" both is a word for art, as well as for organized human society. Culture as art leads the "culture", the society. Art sets the model of politics, of society, of everything, and society and politics follow this model.
Just think about it. The Rock'n'Roll singers had more impact on western society in the 20th century than any single politician. If a politician calls for a political rally, or movement, or action, or a pop star calls for it, who will have more followers in most of cases?
Art is the very source of society and philosophy and language and virtually everything. It is the one thing. The main thing.
Because of this, art *has* the power to change society. And it will change society. How do you use art this way? Easy. Just give art an edge that other art doesn't. Make it big, make it good. But most importantly, don't fall for money and fame, not even "underground fame". Make it true. And be true.
And change will follow.
The problem here is what I call the "Western Art Anomaly"; because in other cultures, both in different times and different locations, people were and are aware that art could change society - it could change a lot (for example kings that arrested artists; because they know their art could cost them their crown. Priests that persecuted artists; because they knew their art could cost them their power).
But in contemporary western society, it is is no longer understood what art is. They think, art, music, movies, that is something you "consume" in your pastime and you have fun with it and maybe dance to it or chill-out or whatever, and you pay money for it and it gives you a good time, and maybe, just maybe, some deep thoughts too!
The common western person behaves like cavemen who discovered a working spaceship; but they don't understand how to fly it, so they just use it to climb on it and jump down from it and think, hey this is a good time.
So what is art exactly? Art is "it". It's the thing. It's the holy grail, it could take you to the stars - metaphorically speaking. Art is where the sky and earth meet. It's the base of society, of politics, and civilization, but it goes beyond them. It is a cultural code that programs society. If you change this code, you can change society.
It's no wonder "culture" both is a word for art, as well as for organized human society. Culture as art leads the "culture", the society. Art sets the model of politics, of society, of everything, and society and politics follow this model.
Just think about it. The Rock'n'Roll singers had more impact on western society in the 20th century than any single politician. If a politician calls for a political rally, or movement, or action, or a pop star calls for it, who will have more followers in most of cases?
Art is the very source of society and philosophy and language and virtually everything. It is the one thing. The main thing.
Because of this, art *has* the power to change society. And it will change society. How do you use art this way? Easy. Just give art an edge that other art doesn't. Make it big, make it good. But most importantly, don't fall for money and fame, not even "underground fame". Make it true. And be true.
And change will follow.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)