Hardcore Techno And Anarchist Theory
all texts written by Sönke Moehl
This E-book can also be downloaded as a PDF at:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/9qdbbyx9zekuvxn/Hardcore%20Techno%20And%20Anarchist%20Theory.pdf?dl=0
Table Of Contents
01. Preface
02. Why I Left The Breakcore Scene In 2001
03. Why I Left Breakcore - Addendum 2
04. We Need A Revolution
05. Merging Techno And Hardcore With Social, Cultural And "Political" Thoughts
06. Artists, Outcasts and Society
07. The Illusion Of The Internet
08. Hardcore Techno, What Was After That, And How Nihilism Got Old
09. Revolution Is In The Air
10. Revolution Of The Mind
11. Sonic Threads
12. The Key
13. Anarchy and Extacy
14. Revolution Or Interest
15. Music Is Dead - Long Live Music!
16. How To Create New Forms Of Music
17. The Closedness Of Possibilities
18. Revolution and Reaction
19. How Critical Debate Is Prevented
20. Techno - Needs More Synthetics
21. Art And Utopia
22. Our Current Crisis Of Culture
Saturday, September 2, 2017
Preface
In this book I try to draw a connection between the musical genre of Hardcore Techno and the political philosophy of Anarchism, as well as dealing with general topics of art theory, cultural resistance, subcultures and other societal and philosophical topics.
Why I Left The Breakcore Scene In 2001
the breakcore and experimental hardcore scene in the beginning revolved around a lot of radical, extreme, interesting, exciting, subversive and anarchist ideas. they were closely related - or similar to those of guy debord, raoul vaneigem, hakim bey, ken knapp. even if one could argue that some artists did not directly espouse these ideas, at least they were similar and it worked both ways. there were a lot of connections between situationism, neo-luddites, "extropism" and the scene back then. especially, but not limited, through the free party scene then.
i don't know if i discovered these topics and ideas "through" the hardcore movement, or just around the same time, but both things fit very well together for me. in record names, track titles, interviews, and especially the magazines that were put out by the people, this connection of both things should probably become very clear. "pirate utopias", "chaos, mayhem and anarchy", and temporary autonomous zones, anyone?
now around 2000, things changed completely in the different direction. a new breakcore scene emerged, quickly replacing the old one, and they were very quick to jettison all the radical ideas. instead they took a for me extremely reactionary stance, celebrating market mechanisms and corporate pop culture, abandoning any attempts at social change, or radicalism.
this was the situation back then; i had started doing my own activites regarding hardcore and breakcore in 1997. my involvement was always about putting the aforementioned, and similar, ideas across. but with these new breakcore people this was simply not possible anymore.
now the thing is, you might say, okay ignore the others, and still try to put ideas across, the majority will ignore them and maybe someone will listen to them.
but it was not as simply as that. the breakcore people, while maybe not understanding, were at least somehow aware of the ideas of the situationists and the others, but trying to coopt them and turning them around.
i came to the conclusion that it was simply not possible to put these ideas across, without them overtaking them or jamming them.
an example of this was pop sampling in hardcore tracks that was around in the 90s too (i'm not talking about the dance-scene related ID&T stuff here, but the extreme hardcore music). back then it was quite subversive. taking some bullshit pop singer crap, pitching it up until it sounds like a squealing weazle and give it the full-on 909 drum treatment. it was simply a "piss-off!" of all that pop crap that was around at the time.
with the breakcore crowd, this turned into pop crossovers, that were simply safe, that everyone done (and still does), and is not subversive at all. or does anyone claim these pop-breakcore tracks will incite any form of radical social change? not even the artists think that.
so for me it was very clear that i had to leave the breakcore sound behind, since it was simply not possible to get these radical ideas through anymore, not for me or for anyone else. now, in hindsight, this conclusion came maybe a bit early, and other artists and groups still tried to bring these things across. but for me it is still the right decision.
especially, since back then, the upcoming speedcore, dance-orientated and doomcore scenes were very and extremely open to these ideas, so it was much better for me to be there then it would've been in the breakcore scene.
today, i wouldn't say the same about the current speedcore or mainstream hardcore world, but doomcore is still going strong.
Addendum 1
i don't want to add this addendum, but i feel like i have to. some people might complain that i'm about "politics" or "ideology" and music should be kept free of them. while i don't think music should be free of it, principally, and situationism and neo-luddites, etc. were already beyond politics - and ideology - then simply drop the "politics" and think of radical, creative, extreme, exciting and interesting ideas. the sound was full of them - but with the breakcore scene, not anymore.
also i should add that i see this change in breakcore around 2000 as a - basically - totally deliberate move - not something that just (or inevitably) happened - even if the artists and people involved were not fully aware or conscious about it - to ultra-reactionism, or rather, ultra-boredom.
i don't know if i discovered these topics and ideas "through" the hardcore movement, or just around the same time, but both things fit very well together for me. in record names, track titles, interviews, and especially the magazines that were put out by the people, this connection of both things should probably become very clear. "pirate utopias", "chaos, mayhem and anarchy", and temporary autonomous zones, anyone?
now around 2000, things changed completely in the different direction. a new breakcore scene emerged, quickly replacing the old one, and they were very quick to jettison all the radical ideas. instead they took a for me extremely reactionary stance, celebrating market mechanisms and corporate pop culture, abandoning any attempts at social change, or radicalism.
this was the situation back then; i had started doing my own activites regarding hardcore and breakcore in 1997. my involvement was always about putting the aforementioned, and similar, ideas across. but with these new breakcore people this was simply not possible anymore.
now the thing is, you might say, okay ignore the others, and still try to put ideas across, the majority will ignore them and maybe someone will listen to them.
but it was not as simply as that. the breakcore people, while maybe not understanding, were at least somehow aware of the ideas of the situationists and the others, but trying to coopt them and turning them around.
i came to the conclusion that it was simply not possible to put these ideas across, without them overtaking them or jamming them.
an example of this was pop sampling in hardcore tracks that was around in the 90s too (i'm not talking about the dance-scene related ID&T stuff here, but the extreme hardcore music). back then it was quite subversive. taking some bullshit pop singer crap, pitching it up until it sounds like a squealing weazle and give it the full-on 909 drum treatment. it was simply a "piss-off!" of all that pop crap that was around at the time.
with the breakcore crowd, this turned into pop crossovers, that were simply safe, that everyone done (and still does), and is not subversive at all. or does anyone claim these pop-breakcore tracks will incite any form of radical social change? not even the artists think that.
so for me it was very clear that i had to leave the breakcore sound behind, since it was simply not possible to get these radical ideas through anymore, not for me or for anyone else. now, in hindsight, this conclusion came maybe a bit early, and other artists and groups still tried to bring these things across. but for me it is still the right decision.
especially, since back then, the upcoming speedcore, dance-orientated and doomcore scenes were very and extremely open to these ideas, so it was much better for me to be there then it would've been in the breakcore scene.
today, i wouldn't say the same about the current speedcore or mainstream hardcore world, but doomcore is still going strong.
Addendum 1
i don't want to add this addendum, but i feel like i have to. some people might complain that i'm about "politics" or "ideology" and music should be kept free of them. while i don't think music should be free of it, principally, and situationism and neo-luddites, etc. were already beyond politics - and ideology - then simply drop the "politics" and think of radical, creative, extreme, exciting and interesting ideas. the sound was full of them - but with the breakcore scene, not anymore.
also i should add that i see this change in breakcore around 2000 as a - basically - totally deliberate move - not something that just (or inevitably) happened - even if the artists and people involved were not fully aware or conscious about it - to ultra-reactionism, or rather, ultra-boredom.
Why I Left Breakcore - Addendum 2
a while ago, i wrote the text "why i left the breakcore scene".
this text created more discussion and feedback than i thought it would... as it was more intended as a personal text.
i feel that in many cases, the point i was trying to make, was cut short. the discussion seemed to revolve more around whether "breakcore" of the past or of the present was better, or more creative, etc.
this was not what i wanted to say. what i felt was, that in the beginning, the scene around breakcore music, was open to a certain ideology, to certain "political", cultural ideas. and i tried to use breakcore music to spread these ideas. a few while later, i felt that it had become virtually impossible to still push these ideas with breakcore music. as breakcore had been infused with a quite different ideology and politics, that were very conformist, pro-consumer society and pro-hierarchy. and i saw no way to counter this process, or rather, i decided it would be wiser to use my energies to spread these ideas in different musical settings, such as speedcore or hardcore, were these ideas could still be communicated and pushed forward. that's why i left breakcore and followed different musical ways.
this text created more discussion and feedback than i thought it would... as it was more intended as a personal text.
i feel that in many cases, the point i was trying to make, was cut short. the discussion seemed to revolve more around whether "breakcore" of the past or of the present was better, or more creative, etc.
this was not what i wanted to say. what i felt was, that in the beginning, the scene around breakcore music, was open to a certain ideology, to certain "political", cultural ideas. and i tried to use breakcore music to spread these ideas. a few while later, i felt that it had become virtually impossible to still push these ideas with breakcore music. as breakcore had been infused with a quite different ideology and politics, that were very conformist, pro-consumer society and pro-hierarchy. and i saw no way to counter this process, or rather, i decided it would be wiser to use my energies to spread these ideas in different musical settings, such as speedcore or hardcore, were these ideas could still be communicated and pushed forward. that's why i left breakcore and followed different musical ways.
We Need A Revolution
we need a fucking revolution.
in the past, almost everyone i knew was about revolutions, riots, uprisings, resistance... the bands and artists i listened to, too. when 2000 came nearer, and afterwards, this changed drastically. the demand for radical change, revolution, was now seen as something childish, immature, a thing of the past. mind you, not only by these artists and people, on which you could perhaps blame it on "growing up" after they went past the 30 year old mark, but *especially* amongst the new bands and new generation.
but apart from this very easy to see through strategy to associate radicalism with "childishness", which is a very often used as a conservative tactic - for the monarchs, "democracy" was a child's dream too, "women's rights" were a "childish concept" for the men of the 19th century - there was a not as easy to refute criticism and analysis of revolution, riots, and radicalism.
that consisted of two parts, that were joined together. had the revolutions of the past not made everything worse instead of better? was the regime of stalin not worse than that of the tsar? what about the revolutions in south america, that just installed a new dictatorship in place of the former?
so would it not be better, if things stayed as worse as they are - instead of going into the horror of a post-revolutionary society in which everything is worse?
the second critique addressed revolution and politics in general. are politics in general not *always* a trap?
and so, isn't revolution, too, a trap? with politics, you have a program, a concept, ideas, a structure, and are these things not bound to create an even bigger failure than the status quo? people are oppressed because of the ruling class. but if you establish a society in which everything is geared towards the ideal of "equality", doesn't this turn into a form of oppression too? just like stalin, who justified his deeds, not by proclaiming a thirst for power and extension of his rulership, but with the ideals of justice, equality and freedom of socialism.
i can only hint at this critique in this text. the question of the "tyranny of the ideals", the tyranny of symbols, could fill a whole book. or rather, a whole library. just let me add that a lot of thinkers, philosophers, and also poets, have pondered about this question.
this critique convinced me too, as it convinced almost everyone, consciously or subconsciously.
i too tried to purge the "revolutionary" vocabulary out of my statements, my thoughts, my demands.
my interest switched to authors, art and music that i deemed subversive and radical without overt claims for a revolution, such as psychobilly, early punkrock, rock'n'roll, krautrock...
there was two things i didn't notice at first.
the first of these i quickly learned, though.
which was that often, those people that now laughed at and criticized revolution, social upheaval and the rest of the political radicals that were still around, were the same people who were amongst the most radical proponents of radical change before. so the same people who hurried people to change everything, were now the ones who tried to tell people that they should stay calm, accept the status quo and accept the way society is.
this for themselves secured a position of intellectual leadership and social status, as the people were eager to listen to and follow these ideas.
there was something extremely fishy about this for me. these persons often had now found success - if even only in their "underground" extended social circle - and it seemed these recommendations to abstain from social radicalism and change also handily helped them to maintain their own "comfortable" position they had in society now.
there was something i didn't notice at all at first, and which took me a very long time to realize.
which was that it was the radical left - or if the word "left" is not the right description for all these people and groups, that espoused change in the direction of freedom, anarchy, anti-authoritarianism - that dropped the concept of revolution. the right didn't think twice if they should drop the idea of radical societal change and a large scale "upheaval" or coup. they didn't say that "reform" or "moderate demands" should replace the concept of a total recreation of society. in their minds, such a change was "necessary", and more important, realistically possible, while for the left a revolution in the near future had become an "unrealistic" concept.
for many people, a claim by a hippie, an anarchist, a leftist for a revolution was completely laughable.
but if a rightwing person called for a radical, profound change of society, they were suddenly eager to agree.
it's horrible that we ended up in such a situation and it's necessary to change it.
let us get back to revolution, let us get to the desire for revolution, for freedom, for anarchy, for liberty, for creativity and expression. let us not get bullied by the others into thinking that revolution is a thing of the past or a child's play (keep in mind a child's concept can be full of wisdom too).
in the past, almost everyone i knew was about revolutions, riots, uprisings, resistance... the bands and artists i listened to, too. when 2000 came nearer, and afterwards, this changed drastically. the demand for radical change, revolution, was now seen as something childish, immature, a thing of the past. mind you, not only by these artists and people, on which you could perhaps blame it on "growing up" after they went past the 30 year old mark, but *especially* amongst the new bands and new generation.
but apart from this very easy to see through strategy to associate radicalism with "childishness", which is a very often used as a conservative tactic - for the monarchs, "democracy" was a child's dream too, "women's rights" were a "childish concept" for the men of the 19th century - there was a not as easy to refute criticism and analysis of revolution, riots, and radicalism.
that consisted of two parts, that were joined together. had the revolutions of the past not made everything worse instead of better? was the regime of stalin not worse than that of the tsar? what about the revolutions in south america, that just installed a new dictatorship in place of the former?
so would it not be better, if things stayed as worse as they are - instead of going into the horror of a post-revolutionary society in which everything is worse?
the second critique addressed revolution and politics in general. are politics in general not *always* a trap?
and so, isn't revolution, too, a trap? with politics, you have a program, a concept, ideas, a structure, and are these things not bound to create an even bigger failure than the status quo? people are oppressed because of the ruling class. but if you establish a society in which everything is geared towards the ideal of "equality", doesn't this turn into a form of oppression too? just like stalin, who justified his deeds, not by proclaiming a thirst for power and extension of his rulership, but with the ideals of justice, equality and freedom of socialism.
i can only hint at this critique in this text. the question of the "tyranny of the ideals", the tyranny of symbols, could fill a whole book. or rather, a whole library. just let me add that a lot of thinkers, philosophers, and also poets, have pondered about this question.
this critique convinced me too, as it convinced almost everyone, consciously or subconsciously.
i too tried to purge the "revolutionary" vocabulary out of my statements, my thoughts, my demands.
my interest switched to authors, art and music that i deemed subversive and radical without overt claims for a revolution, such as psychobilly, early punkrock, rock'n'roll, krautrock...
there was two things i didn't notice at first.
the first of these i quickly learned, though.
which was that often, those people that now laughed at and criticized revolution, social upheaval and the rest of the political radicals that were still around, were the same people who were amongst the most radical proponents of radical change before. so the same people who hurried people to change everything, were now the ones who tried to tell people that they should stay calm, accept the status quo and accept the way society is.
this for themselves secured a position of intellectual leadership and social status, as the people were eager to listen to and follow these ideas.
there was something extremely fishy about this for me. these persons often had now found success - if even only in their "underground" extended social circle - and it seemed these recommendations to abstain from social radicalism and change also handily helped them to maintain their own "comfortable" position they had in society now.
there was something i didn't notice at all at first, and which took me a very long time to realize.
which was that it was the radical left - or if the word "left" is not the right description for all these people and groups, that espoused change in the direction of freedom, anarchy, anti-authoritarianism - that dropped the concept of revolution. the right didn't think twice if they should drop the idea of radical societal change and a large scale "upheaval" or coup. they didn't say that "reform" or "moderate demands" should replace the concept of a total recreation of society. in their minds, such a change was "necessary", and more important, realistically possible, while for the left a revolution in the near future had become an "unrealistic" concept.
for many people, a claim by a hippie, an anarchist, a leftist for a revolution was completely laughable.
but if a rightwing person called for a radical, profound change of society, they were suddenly eager to agree.
it's horrible that we ended up in such a situation and it's necessary to change it.
let us get back to revolution, let us get to the desire for revolution, for freedom, for anarchy, for liberty, for creativity and expression. let us not get bullied by the others into thinking that revolution is a thing of the past or a child's play (keep in mind a child's concept can be full of wisdom too).
Merging Techno And Hardcore With Social, Cultural And "Political" Thoughts
In an earlier text I addressed that techno at the beginning, and especially hardcore and breakcore, were deeply connected to social, cultural, "political" thoughts, ideas, concepts, movements. Radicalism, Subversion, Anti-Art, Creativity, Freedom. Total Anarchy.
This connection was severed - to a large part by a "second wave" of artists and 'scene-goers' who rejected these ideas from the bottom of their minds.
So this former radical form of art, that scared people and made the philistines deeply afraid, became just another form of consumerism, a product, perfumed, nicely cut-out, formatized, harmless.
The former radicals, who did not switch sides or became burned out, got bullied into silence by this onslaught of well-adapted societal persons into this community of now destructed radicalism.
But I think, it is time to speak out again. To get rid of this silence. To raise our voice again.
I say: Fuck You! to those who think music and art is just for "entertainment". For "pleasure". To "consume". Fuck you if you "just want to enjoy the sound", if you just "want to party", to numb your brain with shit music and drift into insignificance.
Fuck all of you.
Now for one more time let's address one of the numberous invalid points this "other side" likely would reply to these thoughts. "Who are you to tell people how to 'enjoy' their music". Okay so be it. If you really think music and art is just for "entertainment" then let's keep it that way. I am not trying to force anyone. But to those, us, like-minded people, who think music and art can be *much more* than this, I say: let us no longer keep silenced by these others, let us speak out, let us speak open, make some noise and let us be heard.
This connection was severed - to a large part by a "second wave" of artists and 'scene-goers' who rejected these ideas from the bottom of their minds.
So this former radical form of art, that scared people and made the philistines deeply afraid, became just another form of consumerism, a product, perfumed, nicely cut-out, formatized, harmless.
The former radicals, who did not switch sides or became burned out, got bullied into silence by this onslaught of well-adapted societal persons into this community of now destructed radicalism.
But I think, it is time to speak out again. To get rid of this silence. To raise our voice again.
I say: Fuck You! to those who think music and art is just for "entertainment". For "pleasure". To "consume". Fuck you if you "just want to enjoy the sound", if you just "want to party", to numb your brain with shit music and drift into insignificance.
Fuck all of you.
Now for one more time let's address one of the numberous invalid points this "other side" likely would reply to these thoughts. "Who are you to tell people how to 'enjoy' their music". Okay so be it. If you really think music and art is just for "entertainment" then let's keep it that way. I am not trying to force anyone. But to those, us, like-minded people, who think music and art can be *much more* than this, I say: let us no longer keep silenced by these others, let us speak out, let us speak open, make some noise and let us be heard.
Artists, Outcasts and Society
there is a thought expressed by many artists of the last centuries, the thought of being solitary, in their actions and thoughts, completely alone - understood by noone. some artists expressed these thoughts more direct, some indirect, some stronger, some more reluctant. but it can be found in many words and statements. similar, a lot of humans have felt, or expressed, similar emotions. but what is this "unbridgeable chasm" so many people - yet so few, compared to the masses - have experienced? how can an artist that is celebrated by - literally - millions of people still feel lonely?
it's easy to explain. art deals with ideas. thoughts, concepts. imagination, dreams, creativity. philosophy, reflection. and this is simply an impossibility for almost any living human being on planet earth. the general people are interested in direct, tangible, "down to earth" things, as they call it. cars. money. luxury. rising in social esteem. they can easily understood that a man uses up a lot of his energy to gain a tangible thing such as money. but they can never understood how someone could use up his "precious" time for something that is as abstract as art. it's not something they can directly touch. hold in their hands. so they don't understand it.
adults might be worried that a teenage girl spends time in her room alone drawing pictures. yet they would accept it if she went out to the world, got a job and bought things from this. hell, they even preferred it if she just went out (even without enough money) and looked at clothing and shoes, like other girls do. because this is something tangible. money, shoes, clothing you can touch. hold in your hands. art you cannot. well you can hold a picture; but this is just the paper you are holding; the artwork itself you cannot hold (as it could be on any medium). this is because art is, as i said, is related to thoughts, ideas, concepts.
now it is not as it would be impossible for the majority to hold ideas, or to be creative themselves. but there is one thing, that completely makes artists and a lot of other outcasts different from all other people. which is, that they - directly or indirectly, unconsciously or consciously - realize that ideas and thoughts can be important by themselves. that they can be worthy, wonderful, fantastic, great, marvelous - just as thoughts and ideas. this is the difference to the general man. a man might follow and pursue an idea too - if in the end he can again gain something tangible from it. a worker's strike is an idea too - a social and political idea. men might follow this idea and go on a strike, if they think they can get a rise in their pay by this. this money is something tangible again, that they can hold in their hands. but - at least in this day and age - a strike that is just for social justice, or peace, or another concept like this, would be rare[1]. because these again are mere ideas - not something tangible such as money - and people do not realize their worth. if people would be convinced a social or political action would never have a tangible or direct outcome, they would not pursue it - not for the idea alone. and this is the error and the mistake. for it is worth to do a vast numbers of things just for an idea. and this is the difference to the artist. plenty of artists not only - at first - did not gain and material, tangible thing from their art, they even sacrificed a lot of these things - money, belongings, sometimes even more than that - to be able to do their art. because they realize that the art itself - the idea of art, the ideas associated with their art - is worth a huge number of things. they don't *need* a material gain out of their art - because the art - it's ideas - on their own are already vastly pleasurably, great, wonderful, satisfying, important. this is something the "common" man can never understand. how can be an idea - on it's own - already be so important? so gratifying? so exciting? sure, they too, value ideas. the idea of a government, of capitalism maybe. but these are ideas that are - for them - tied into tangible and material things. they cannot see the value of an idea that is merely abstract.
an idea does not have to be tied in to something direct, tangible, to be worthy. it can be worthy pursuing, even if it is merely an idea, abstract, a theory - without ever having any "real" effect, even if forever it stays just an idea, an abstraction. the beauty, concept and pursuit of art irrefutably prove this.
mabye one in a million ever makes this realization in their lives. this explains the felt loneliness by the artists. as they already deal in ideas and realize their beauty. an artist could have plenty of fans, who think he, and his art, are more important than anything else in this world, and would do anything for him and his art - yet they are still billions of miles removed from him, do not understand one single thing. because they do not realize what exactly makes his art so important - the pursuit of ideas. it remains forever a mystery to them.
a similar emotion is felt by social outcasts, who too follow ideas. they might follow the ideas of a better society, of political, or cultural change - or even more abstract ideas and insights. this is what the others do not get about them. 'how come you follow an "idea"?', 'why don't you go out and have a good time' and other calls for them to focus on something more tangible. the others, again, do not realize how someone could follow, and dedicate a part of his life, to a mere idea - an idea that stays abstract, ideal.
but ideas can be more important than most things in this world.
footnotes:
[1]: in the past, worker's strikes for solidarity, or social progress itself - abstract ideas - actually did take place. i assume this is because in the past ideas were still valued more by people. how this ties in to this text would be too long to write down for this text.
it's easy to explain. art deals with ideas. thoughts, concepts. imagination, dreams, creativity. philosophy, reflection. and this is simply an impossibility for almost any living human being on planet earth. the general people are interested in direct, tangible, "down to earth" things, as they call it. cars. money. luxury. rising in social esteem. they can easily understood that a man uses up a lot of his energy to gain a tangible thing such as money. but they can never understood how someone could use up his "precious" time for something that is as abstract as art. it's not something they can directly touch. hold in their hands. so they don't understand it.
adults might be worried that a teenage girl spends time in her room alone drawing pictures. yet they would accept it if she went out to the world, got a job and bought things from this. hell, they even preferred it if she just went out (even without enough money) and looked at clothing and shoes, like other girls do. because this is something tangible. money, shoes, clothing you can touch. hold in your hands. art you cannot. well you can hold a picture; but this is just the paper you are holding; the artwork itself you cannot hold (as it could be on any medium). this is because art is, as i said, is related to thoughts, ideas, concepts.
now it is not as it would be impossible for the majority to hold ideas, or to be creative themselves. but there is one thing, that completely makes artists and a lot of other outcasts different from all other people. which is, that they - directly or indirectly, unconsciously or consciously - realize that ideas and thoughts can be important by themselves. that they can be worthy, wonderful, fantastic, great, marvelous - just as thoughts and ideas. this is the difference to the general man. a man might follow and pursue an idea too - if in the end he can again gain something tangible from it. a worker's strike is an idea too - a social and political idea. men might follow this idea and go on a strike, if they think they can get a rise in their pay by this. this money is something tangible again, that they can hold in their hands. but - at least in this day and age - a strike that is just for social justice, or peace, or another concept like this, would be rare[1]. because these again are mere ideas - not something tangible such as money - and people do not realize their worth. if people would be convinced a social or political action would never have a tangible or direct outcome, they would not pursue it - not for the idea alone. and this is the error and the mistake. for it is worth to do a vast numbers of things just for an idea. and this is the difference to the artist. plenty of artists not only - at first - did not gain and material, tangible thing from their art, they even sacrificed a lot of these things - money, belongings, sometimes even more than that - to be able to do their art. because they realize that the art itself - the idea of art, the ideas associated with their art - is worth a huge number of things. they don't *need* a material gain out of their art - because the art - it's ideas - on their own are already vastly pleasurably, great, wonderful, satisfying, important. this is something the "common" man can never understand. how can be an idea - on it's own - already be so important? so gratifying? so exciting? sure, they too, value ideas. the idea of a government, of capitalism maybe. but these are ideas that are - for them - tied into tangible and material things. they cannot see the value of an idea that is merely abstract.
an idea does not have to be tied in to something direct, tangible, to be worthy. it can be worthy pursuing, even if it is merely an idea, abstract, a theory - without ever having any "real" effect, even if forever it stays just an idea, an abstraction. the beauty, concept and pursuit of art irrefutably prove this.
mabye one in a million ever makes this realization in their lives. this explains the felt loneliness by the artists. as they already deal in ideas and realize their beauty. an artist could have plenty of fans, who think he, and his art, are more important than anything else in this world, and would do anything for him and his art - yet they are still billions of miles removed from him, do not understand one single thing. because they do not realize what exactly makes his art so important - the pursuit of ideas. it remains forever a mystery to them.
a similar emotion is felt by social outcasts, who too follow ideas. they might follow the ideas of a better society, of political, or cultural change - or even more abstract ideas and insights. this is what the others do not get about them. 'how come you follow an "idea"?', 'why don't you go out and have a good time' and other calls for them to focus on something more tangible. the others, again, do not realize how someone could follow, and dedicate a part of his life, to a mere idea - an idea that stays abstract, ideal.
but ideas can be more important than most things in this world.
footnotes:
[1]: in the past, worker's strikes for solidarity, or social progress itself - abstract ideas - actually did take place. i assume this is because in the past ideas were still valued more by people. how this ties in to this text would be too long to write down for this text.
The Illusion Of The Internet
people do not seem much interested in revolt or rebellion anymore. or in any attempt to overthrow and establish a better society (maybe things will change in the next years, but the point i am trying to make with this text will still be true). i think to a huge part, the internet is to blame for this. if people, of any age, are interested in rebellion, or societal change, or anarchy, they will undoubtedly look this up on the internet. and they will read about it. and they will see, or rather, they will read on the internet, that most revolutions of the past turned sour - the overthrow of the tsar that led to the iron rule of stalin, and the others. they will also read that in modern times, no longer-working societal anarchy existed - either it failed, or it was crushed. they will get to know that even teenagers that ran away from home or turned punk, in the end became boring 30 year olds like all the rest - if they didn't found a much more sour ending. so why follow rebellion? why follow anarchy?
it is understandable, from this point of view, that the youth, the workers, the oppressed, don't rebel and call for an overthrow anymore. it all seems so pointless. but this is a lie. it is a lie of the internet. it is not the truth. it as an illusion. it is an illusion that pins people down, that makes them conform to society, to be afraid of stepping out of the line and trying something new. it is not real. it is fake. how could this be fake, you might ask. does the internet not simply state the facts? yes, it states some facts - but it conceals a lot. it conceals very important things. which is this, that is concealed by the internet? it is, that you might read about rebellion and anarchy of the past, and of the present. and it is that these things might look sour, hopeless, or disappointing. but this is just the anarchy and rebellion you read about. it is not *your* rebellion. it is not *your* anarchy. you are alive. what the internet gives you is just dead information. *you* can change things. *you* can try things. the internet can't. the anarchy of the past, that failed and is written down now, can't. because it is not alive in the sense that you are alive. this is the lie of the internet. the illusion of the internet. you are on the internet, but you are not the internet. there is a gap, there is not a true connection, coherence. and this gap is invisible to the interned-eyed. but within this gap, everything is possible. it is the thing you cannot find on the internet, and probably will never find on the internet. sure, the anarchy and rebellion, the anarchies and rebellions you read about might have all failed, or found a bad end. but *your* anarchy does not have to fail. forgot what you read. it is dead. it is text. it is of no meaning. *your* rebellion does not have to fail. your anarchy and rebellion is still possible, it is alive, it is living, inside yourself and everywhere. and this way, you can end up with something good.
it is understandable, from this point of view, that the youth, the workers, the oppressed, don't rebel and call for an overthrow anymore. it all seems so pointless. but this is a lie. it is a lie of the internet. it is not the truth. it as an illusion. it is an illusion that pins people down, that makes them conform to society, to be afraid of stepping out of the line and trying something new. it is not real. it is fake. how could this be fake, you might ask. does the internet not simply state the facts? yes, it states some facts - but it conceals a lot. it conceals very important things. which is this, that is concealed by the internet? it is, that you might read about rebellion and anarchy of the past, and of the present. and it is that these things might look sour, hopeless, or disappointing. but this is just the anarchy and rebellion you read about. it is not *your* rebellion. it is not *your* anarchy. you are alive. what the internet gives you is just dead information. *you* can change things. *you* can try things. the internet can't. the anarchy of the past, that failed and is written down now, can't. because it is not alive in the sense that you are alive. this is the lie of the internet. the illusion of the internet. you are on the internet, but you are not the internet. there is a gap, there is not a true connection, coherence. and this gap is invisible to the interned-eyed. but within this gap, everything is possible. it is the thing you cannot find on the internet, and probably will never find on the internet. sure, the anarchy and rebellion, the anarchies and rebellions you read about might have all failed, or found a bad end. but *your* anarchy does not have to fail. forgot what you read. it is dead. it is text. it is of no meaning. *your* rebellion does not have to fail. your anarchy and rebellion is still possible, it is alive, it is living, inside yourself and everywhere. and this way, you can end up with something good.
Hardcore Techno, What Was After That, And How Nihilism Got Old
the underground and experimental hardcore techno movement of the 90s was in many senses, to me, the logical end of the era of the modern, of the 20th century so to speak. we had seen uprisings in the 60s, in which many of the so called western "values", ideas, concepts, authorities and oppressive structures and their philosophy were attacked and criticized. the punk era took the nihilism even farther than that. with hardcore techno, the nihilism became total. experimental hardcore techno rejected everything. soundwise, it more or less made no amends to any genres that were around at the time; neither to pop, dance, or alternative rock, or the "intelligent electronica" genres that were around, and in a sense not even to its own techno and hardcore roots, as the funk and groove of techno and house were completely eradicated with the brickstone killer kicks.
i was around at that scene, so i know a lot of people in it where pissed at any scene, at any existing form of music, at all of society and western civilization, all the politics left and right. it was not uncommon to listen only to various forms of hardcore and to lock oneself in on friday nights when everyone else went out to the "club".
the lyrics, label pictures, quotes used in hardcore tracks and their records point to this nihilism. the frenetic use of any sample material available regarding global nuclear warfare; "the missiles take to the skies by the thousand" via brandon spivey "devastation on an unimaginable scale will occur" via surgeon 16 records. "Imagine surveying earth after nuclear destruction and enjoying what you see" via the mover's interview in alien underground.
it was like saying. hell, you people build these missiles. you kept us in fear of war for decades. just go ahead. launch the missiles. let nuclear warheads reign from the sky. it will not be a loss anyway. who cares about humanity.
okay, i could go on with further examples. but i will stop here. so we were sitting here, being over with and disattached to anything and everything. now a new generation of idiots arrived, and immediately tried to make us feel old. especially in the breakcore scene. they were basically saying: "okay, everything sucks. but, resistance, rebellion, anarchy is a concept too. an ideology, if you will. so if you cling to it, you are still attached to something that is outdated. we are one stop further in nihilism. we won't even resist or scream anymore."
that's how they wished to appear, unconsciously or consciously. their standpoint was easy to refute and overcome, though, as they embraced mass culture, pop music, society's authorities, things that were used to be rejected. so they were the opposite of being nihilistic, after all. the 60s rebellion might have been old by 2000; but pop culture was even older and more outdated. so the new breakcore crowd actually put themselves into a conservatism of a long gone past. yet the problem was, their point was not so easy to refute after all. if you ought to reject *everything*. shouldn't you reject radical politics and anarchism too?
there are two things to say about this. first, the whole "art for art's sake" stance has one major problem. you can say art should be free of all categories, and just be made for the sake of art itself, to spread and create art. but, this leaves one category intact. which is that "art" itself is a category. if you really want to remove all categories, you have to take art itself out of the equation too.
as long as you still say you create or enjoy art, you are still trapped in walking in categories.
this might seem very abstract - and it is, but it is entirely possible to remove the category of art itself. for example, in music, you could stop buying records altogether and just listen to car's driving on the streets or birds singing in the forest - "sounds" that are usually not classified as being "music". there is more to say about this, but this is not the room for that.
the second thing is, that, while in theory, all categories and concepts indeed should be removed, this doesn't hold so true in reality, or rather, it is not correct at all, at least not fully correct.
you ought to use categories, concepts, theories, symbols, thought sets. base art on them, entangle your art in them, use them as a focus point for your art. and also elsewhere. if you reject all ideology, you should be aware that anarchism can easily become an - oppressive - ideology too, if taken in the wrong direction. yet anarchism is necessary, in order to create a free society.
this sounds paradox, and it is paradox, one of the biggest paradox. but it is also right.
maybe the only thing one could say is: follow concepts, use concepts, ideas, theories; but be also on the guard about them, prepare yourself to reject them, deconstruct, and use this ability often.
this can lead to an interesting outcome.
i was around at that scene, so i know a lot of people in it where pissed at any scene, at any existing form of music, at all of society and western civilization, all the politics left and right. it was not uncommon to listen only to various forms of hardcore and to lock oneself in on friday nights when everyone else went out to the "club".
the lyrics, label pictures, quotes used in hardcore tracks and their records point to this nihilism. the frenetic use of any sample material available regarding global nuclear warfare; "the missiles take to the skies by the thousand" via brandon spivey "devastation on an unimaginable scale will occur" via surgeon 16 records. "Imagine surveying earth after nuclear destruction and enjoying what you see" via the mover's interview in alien underground.
it was like saying. hell, you people build these missiles. you kept us in fear of war for decades. just go ahead. launch the missiles. let nuclear warheads reign from the sky. it will not be a loss anyway. who cares about humanity.
okay, i could go on with further examples. but i will stop here. so we were sitting here, being over with and disattached to anything and everything. now a new generation of idiots arrived, and immediately tried to make us feel old. especially in the breakcore scene. they were basically saying: "okay, everything sucks. but, resistance, rebellion, anarchy is a concept too. an ideology, if you will. so if you cling to it, you are still attached to something that is outdated. we are one stop further in nihilism. we won't even resist or scream anymore."
that's how they wished to appear, unconsciously or consciously. their standpoint was easy to refute and overcome, though, as they embraced mass culture, pop music, society's authorities, things that were used to be rejected. so they were the opposite of being nihilistic, after all. the 60s rebellion might have been old by 2000; but pop culture was even older and more outdated. so the new breakcore crowd actually put themselves into a conservatism of a long gone past. yet the problem was, their point was not so easy to refute after all. if you ought to reject *everything*. shouldn't you reject radical politics and anarchism too?
there are two things to say about this. first, the whole "art for art's sake" stance has one major problem. you can say art should be free of all categories, and just be made for the sake of art itself, to spread and create art. but, this leaves one category intact. which is that "art" itself is a category. if you really want to remove all categories, you have to take art itself out of the equation too.
as long as you still say you create or enjoy art, you are still trapped in walking in categories.
this might seem very abstract - and it is, but it is entirely possible to remove the category of art itself. for example, in music, you could stop buying records altogether and just listen to car's driving on the streets or birds singing in the forest - "sounds" that are usually not classified as being "music". there is more to say about this, but this is not the room for that.
the second thing is, that, while in theory, all categories and concepts indeed should be removed, this doesn't hold so true in reality, or rather, it is not correct at all, at least not fully correct.
you ought to use categories, concepts, theories, symbols, thought sets. base art on them, entangle your art in them, use them as a focus point for your art. and also elsewhere. if you reject all ideology, you should be aware that anarchism can easily become an - oppressive - ideology too, if taken in the wrong direction. yet anarchism is necessary, in order to create a free society.
this sounds paradox, and it is paradox, one of the biggest paradox. but it is also right.
maybe the only thing one could say is: follow concepts, use concepts, ideas, theories; but be also on the guard about them, prepare yourself to reject them, deconstruct, and use this ability often.
this can lead to an interesting outcome.
Revolution Is In The Air
revolution is in the air... again... finally.
there were some dark years, after the damned early 2000 years, when political, societal, cultural uprising, revolution, change seemed to be defeated, seemed to be futile. people where not only not interested in revolution anymore; you were laughed at if you still talked and fought for it; not even seen as their "enemy", but rather as a child who doesn't understand the basic fact that the status quo and the system will always be in this way, seemingly live on forever.
as i addressed in other texts, formerly "revolutionary" artists - or rather artists who had abused revolutionary rhetoric for their own ends, quickly jettisoned their revolutionary ideas and found their peace with pop culture, conservatism, the political system and market society. this was enhanced by the idea that now in a society driven mostly by computer technology, revolutionary struggle would just be an idea of the past.
okay so these were the dark years. nearly 10 dark, bleak years where it seemed humanity - at least in the western world - had finally lost it and we were stuck with a society that either bored us to death or directly killed us forever.
but in the last years, starting somewhen around 2007 for me, and especially after 2010, i noticed that things were about to change again. it was immediately clear to me that revolution was finally back. anarchism was back. social struggle was back. after 2013 it totally came out in the open for me. obviously this tendency had ran for a longer time already, and probably never had totally gone away, but i hadn't noticed it before. suddenly, it became visible that there was an interest in political ideas. in social struggle. people read about anarchism again and about anarchist authors. the interest in these things seems to strengthen everymonth, basically. it is something that is talked about again, that people are willing to dedicate themselves to again. of course, not yet, the large masses. but a large number of people, at least.
these are great and wonderful news. revolution is in the air again. you might see it too again, soon. or if it doesnt become visible - at least it's there, it's happening, and it's growing.
great times lie ahead. adventures, exciting, wonderful times.
there were some dark years, after the damned early 2000 years, when political, societal, cultural uprising, revolution, change seemed to be defeated, seemed to be futile. people where not only not interested in revolution anymore; you were laughed at if you still talked and fought for it; not even seen as their "enemy", but rather as a child who doesn't understand the basic fact that the status quo and the system will always be in this way, seemingly live on forever.
as i addressed in other texts, formerly "revolutionary" artists - or rather artists who had abused revolutionary rhetoric for their own ends, quickly jettisoned their revolutionary ideas and found their peace with pop culture, conservatism, the political system and market society. this was enhanced by the idea that now in a society driven mostly by computer technology, revolutionary struggle would just be an idea of the past.
okay so these were the dark years. nearly 10 dark, bleak years where it seemed humanity - at least in the western world - had finally lost it and we were stuck with a society that either bored us to death or directly killed us forever.
but in the last years, starting somewhen around 2007 for me, and especially after 2010, i noticed that things were about to change again. it was immediately clear to me that revolution was finally back. anarchism was back. social struggle was back. after 2013 it totally came out in the open for me. obviously this tendency had ran for a longer time already, and probably never had totally gone away, but i hadn't noticed it before. suddenly, it became visible that there was an interest in political ideas. in social struggle. people read about anarchism again and about anarchist authors. the interest in these things seems to strengthen everymonth, basically. it is something that is talked about again, that people are willing to dedicate themselves to again. of course, not yet, the large masses. but a large number of people, at least.
these are great and wonderful news. revolution is in the air again. you might see it too again, soon. or if it doesnt become visible - at least it's there, it's happening, and it's growing.
great times lie ahead. adventures, exciting, wonderful times.
Revolution Of The Mind
i talk about revolution, uprising, and support a free society and communal forms of economy. in my opinion, this is correct. but there is also another a thing. yes, the state, the nation, the capital, should be fought. but, also, in fact, there is no state. no nation. no capital. these are just ideas, merely existing in the imagination of people. you might say, well, of course there are states, usa, germany, france, there are governments, laws. yes, these things, more or less, exist. but these are not what people think when they say "state". they don't fit to the ideas they represent.
just open your favorite newspaper, or in our digital age, your favorite newspage. read the stories. for example: the law is part of the government, of the state. but if you read the newsstories, you will find that not only the gangsters and outsiders break the law regularly, but also common people, also the upper class - and also the politicians themselves. the law, as the idea it is put forward, doesn't exist. has never existed. sure, there is police, and there are laws that are written on paper, but these are far away from the ideal of law that is put forward. you could say this about almost any other aspect of government. the government is supposed to support the social good; does it do this on a larger scale? the government has an army to defend the nation; is it used this way (and not to attack other nations for reasons such as power and greed)? so, yes, there is a thing called "the state". but, it is far different from the idea of the state that people have in their head.
there is no government and no state in the real, 'philosophical', coherent idea of these words. similar there are no markets, no nations, no economics.
capitalist and government institutions are upheld because a lot of people profiteer from these. but these people, businessman and politicians, do not even believe in these things themselves or follow "the rules". they are often the most corrupt of all.
but also in a negative sense states do not exist. there is no body of people that would coherently defend the ruling class against revolt. not in a decisive, true way at least. i'm sure if revolution happens most of the politicians, policemen, supporters would scatter in panic, and try to flee or run over to the other side.
because the state is just an idea.
it runs deeper than that; it takes longer to explain; as usual. but be sure, the state and hierarchy is just a thought in your head.
poor revolutionaries of the past, waiting, cumulating their power for a final attack on the hierarchy that never comes, while all they had had to do was to get the idea of "state" and "hierarchy" out of their head, to be able to be free, to attain real freedom.
if we want revolution, the important and main task is to free the minds of people, so that they are able to get these ideas that repress them out of their head; to abandon the ideas of a government, a state, of capitalism.
this by no means does make obsolete the need for tangible activism too. riots, revolts, uprisings are necessary too, as are local and international organization. but these have to be entwined in the task to give people the chance to free their minds too.
in the end, both things strengthen each other.
these are great and wonderful news. revolution is in the air again. you might see it too again, soon. or if it doesnt become visible - at least it's there, it's happening, and it's growing.
great times lie ahead. adventures, exciting, wonderful times.
just open your favorite newspaper, or in our digital age, your favorite newspage. read the stories. for example: the law is part of the government, of the state. but if you read the newsstories, you will find that not only the gangsters and outsiders break the law regularly, but also common people, also the upper class - and also the politicians themselves. the law, as the idea it is put forward, doesn't exist. has never existed. sure, there is police, and there are laws that are written on paper, but these are far away from the ideal of law that is put forward. you could say this about almost any other aspect of government. the government is supposed to support the social good; does it do this on a larger scale? the government has an army to defend the nation; is it used this way (and not to attack other nations for reasons such as power and greed)? so, yes, there is a thing called "the state". but, it is far different from the idea of the state that people have in their head.
there is no government and no state in the real, 'philosophical', coherent idea of these words. similar there are no markets, no nations, no economics.
capitalist and government institutions are upheld because a lot of people profiteer from these. but these people, businessman and politicians, do not even believe in these things themselves or follow "the rules". they are often the most corrupt of all.
but also in a negative sense states do not exist. there is no body of people that would coherently defend the ruling class against revolt. not in a decisive, true way at least. i'm sure if revolution happens most of the politicians, policemen, supporters would scatter in panic, and try to flee or run over to the other side.
because the state is just an idea.
it runs deeper than that; it takes longer to explain; as usual. but be sure, the state and hierarchy is just a thought in your head.
poor revolutionaries of the past, waiting, cumulating their power for a final attack on the hierarchy that never comes, while all they had had to do was to get the idea of "state" and "hierarchy" out of their head, to be able to be free, to attain real freedom.
if we want revolution, the important and main task is to free the minds of people, so that they are able to get these ideas that repress them out of their head; to abandon the ideas of a government, a state, of capitalism.
this by no means does make obsolete the need for tangible activism too. riots, revolts, uprisings are necessary too, as are local and international organization. but these have to be entwined in the task to give people the chance to free their minds too.
in the end, both things strengthen each other.
these are great and wonderful news. revolution is in the air again. you might see it too again, soon. or if it doesnt become visible - at least it's there, it's happening, and it's growing.
great times lie ahead. adventures, exciting, wonderful times.
Sonic Threads
it is interesting to note there is seemingly a sonic thread, in terms of content, message, philosophy in the music of the last decades; and this thread even continues along the seemingly rifts in music; the breaks between declining and new genres, and creates a bit of a whole connection.
60s rock, hippie, countercultural revolt grew stale in the 70s; i think this also shows in their music, and i think "the wall" by pink floyd is a good example of this. it paints a complete bleak, depressing hopeless picture. take a look of the lyrics of its song, "Another Brick In The Wall Part 3"
I don't need no arms around me
And I dont need no drugs to calm me.
I have seen the writing on the wall.
Don't think I need anything at all.
No! Don't think I'll need anything at all.
All in all it was all just bricks in the wall.
All in all you were all just bricks in the wall.
the ending point. all is hopeless. how to go on from this? this was the ending of the first rock period that originated in the 60s. yet, something new was beginning. the punk explosion. and, lyricwise, and in their philosophy, they actually went on from this. okay, so everything is shit. everything is hopeless. but hey, let's have fun with that. we got decay? give us more decay. gives us anarchy, nihilism. "there is no future on in england's dreaming". so get on the floor and get wild to the guitars.
so, even though punk wanted to be a total break from 60s and 70s rock, which they saw as "hippie" music, in content, they went on from it (and transcended it). this was likely not a conscious decision - but it is interesting, to find indications for this thing.
a second example is the acid house and techno explosion, which came at a point when "indie" and genres as shoegaze dominated the subcultures.
punk had given way to postpunk, new wave and indie bands. while they had their cheerful moments too, they were also in most cases considerably bleak in their lyrical and sonic content.
yet, at the end (but also from the beginning), in their content, they reached a strange form of transcendence. okay, everything is bleak, everything is hopeless. but if you realise this, if you give in, if you see that all is in vain, you reach some point of exalted feeling of freedom. give up the world and the world won't faze you anymore. yes, it all was in vain, but it doesn't matter. it doesn't reach you.
this not only was the end of postpunk, or a certain grey worldview; it was also the farthest deconstruction of the modern worldview in general, with its ideas, morals and values, that had lost its meaning for its youth and discontent.
now, the interesting thing, is that techno and rave exactly pick up at that point, in their mindset and spectrum of ideas. postpunk led to the point that all in the world was meaningless. so rave tried to create something that was outside the common things and of meaning again. techno in its ideology, at the beginning at least, was very unworldly. go into ecstasy, into trance, "higher states of consciousness", into introspection and bliss. also, the issues of everyday experience were negated to an extreme point: we don't care about the political systems anymore, about cold wars, nuclear arms, all the bleak and disappointing issues in this world: let's dance, have fun, enjoy your life, relax and be happy.
so, techno originated from the meaningless, and set out to create meaning again. inevitably, the ecstasy and exaltation of rave grew stale about a decade later too, again. but it is interesting to see this ongoing sonic thread; and it is to wonder, what will be the next development, the next movement?
60s rock, hippie, countercultural revolt grew stale in the 70s; i think this also shows in their music, and i think "the wall" by pink floyd is a good example of this. it paints a complete bleak, depressing hopeless picture. take a look of the lyrics of its song, "Another Brick In The Wall Part 3"
I don't need no arms around me
And I dont need no drugs to calm me.
I have seen the writing on the wall.
Don't think I need anything at all.
No! Don't think I'll need anything at all.
All in all it was all just bricks in the wall.
All in all you were all just bricks in the wall.
the ending point. all is hopeless. how to go on from this? this was the ending of the first rock period that originated in the 60s. yet, something new was beginning. the punk explosion. and, lyricwise, and in their philosophy, they actually went on from this. okay, so everything is shit. everything is hopeless. but hey, let's have fun with that. we got decay? give us more decay. gives us anarchy, nihilism. "there is no future on in england's dreaming". so get on the floor and get wild to the guitars.
so, even though punk wanted to be a total break from 60s and 70s rock, which they saw as "hippie" music, in content, they went on from it (and transcended it). this was likely not a conscious decision - but it is interesting, to find indications for this thing.
a second example is the acid house and techno explosion, which came at a point when "indie" and genres as shoegaze dominated the subcultures.
punk had given way to postpunk, new wave and indie bands. while they had their cheerful moments too, they were also in most cases considerably bleak in their lyrical and sonic content.
yet, at the end (but also from the beginning), in their content, they reached a strange form of transcendence. okay, everything is bleak, everything is hopeless. but if you realise this, if you give in, if you see that all is in vain, you reach some point of exalted feeling of freedom. give up the world and the world won't faze you anymore. yes, it all was in vain, but it doesn't matter. it doesn't reach you.
this not only was the end of postpunk, or a certain grey worldview; it was also the farthest deconstruction of the modern worldview in general, with its ideas, morals and values, that had lost its meaning for its youth and discontent.
now, the interesting thing, is that techno and rave exactly pick up at that point, in their mindset and spectrum of ideas. postpunk led to the point that all in the world was meaningless. so rave tried to create something that was outside the common things and of meaning again. techno in its ideology, at the beginning at least, was very unworldly. go into ecstasy, into trance, "higher states of consciousness", into introspection and bliss. also, the issues of everyday experience were negated to an extreme point: we don't care about the political systems anymore, about cold wars, nuclear arms, all the bleak and disappointing issues in this world: let's dance, have fun, enjoy your life, relax and be happy.
so, techno originated from the meaningless, and set out to create meaning again. inevitably, the ecstasy and exaltation of rave grew stale about a decade later too, again. but it is interesting to see this ongoing sonic thread; and it is to wonder, what will be the next development, the next movement?
The Key
i know the answer and i know it not. i know nothing and i know everything.
the key, the answer you are seeking, is - yourself.
that is the most important thing. the major thing. the mover of all things.
how do i mean this? for example, you, as everyone is facing a multitude of problems in life. you will never solve them - until you make peace with yourself. accept yourself, and further yourself. love yourself.
you will fail the most profane tasks in life if you are in a fight with yourself (in fact, many people who are in disarray with their selves - for example while being heartbroken - will even fail to go out regularly and socialize, or eat enough). when you are whole, when you are in touch with yourself, you can excel at the most complicate and intricate tasks.
or, the struggle of common life doesn't interest you as much, at least not on the everyday level. and you seek wisdom,
the answers, a purpose, a goal in life. again, you can only find this - and you will find this - if you get in touch with yourself.
the self is the key to anything.
of course, so far almost any social, religious, political structure - the church, the state, capitalism tells you to *get rid* of yourself. in fact this is the very basis of all social structures that existed so far. it lies at the beginning of religion; in any major religion its priests or monks will tell you that the way is to abandon yourself, to grow over yourself, to learn to get rid of it. then you will find peace and enlightenment.
but this is wrong. it is exactly the other way round. if you move closer to yourself, then you can move ahead.
so further yourself. support yourself. explore yourself. get to know yourself. get in contact with your self.
love your self.
the key, the answer you are seeking, is - yourself.
that is the most important thing. the major thing. the mover of all things.
how do i mean this? for example, you, as everyone is facing a multitude of problems in life. you will never solve them - until you make peace with yourself. accept yourself, and further yourself. love yourself.
you will fail the most profane tasks in life if you are in a fight with yourself (in fact, many people who are in disarray with their selves - for example while being heartbroken - will even fail to go out regularly and socialize, or eat enough). when you are whole, when you are in touch with yourself, you can excel at the most complicate and intricate tasks.
or, the struggle of common life doesn't interest you as much, at least not on the everyday level. and you seek wisdom,
the answers, a purpose, a goal in life. again, you can only find this - and you will find this - if you get in touch with yourself.
the self is the key to anything.
of course, so far almost any social, religious, political structure - the church, the state, capitalism tells you to *get rid* of yourself. in fact this is the very basis of all social structures that existed so far. it lies at the beginning of religion; in any major religion its priests or monks will tell you that the way is to abandon yourself, to grow over yourself, to learn to get rid of it. then you will find peace and enlightenment.
but this is wrong. it is exactly the other way round. if you move closer to yourself, then you can move ahead.
so further yourself. support yourself. explore yourself. get to know yourself. get in contact with your self.
love your self.
Anarchy and Extacy
the system, society, capitalist civilization, dulls our minds; our senses; our bodies. the everyday oppression by police, surveillance, capitalist factories, are a thousand times surmounted by the oppression of our minds and thoughts. society leaves us with only a small pile of dust of joys and enthusiasm still available for us; boring reality tv shows; shopping for overpriced shoes; all the small and large, but false, attraction of all kinds of luxury items.
there is so much more in life. there should be so much more. all these adventures that could happen. all these journeys one could begin. all these joys, excitement, satisfaction that is out there, that waits to be discovered.
the sweet, sweet tears of ecstasy.
there is so much joy and pure bliss one can experience in this life. i feel there is no limit on happiness. you can always surpass it. yet capitalism bores us with the "everyday life" we are locked in. yes, the institutions of the state have to be questioned. those of the capital. those of other forms of oppression. but we mustn't forget the other struggle too, the struggle for adventure, for the fantastic. we need to pave a way for ecstasy. for a true anarchy, an anarchy of the wondrous, of the brilliant.
there is so much more in life. there should be so much more. all these adventures that could happen. all these journeys one could begin. all these joys, excitement, satisfaction that is out there, that waits to be discovered.
the sweet, sweet tears of ecstasy.
there is so much joy and pure bliss one can experience in this life. i feel there is no limit on happiness. you can always surpass it. yet capitalism bores us with the "everyday life" we are locked in. yes, the institutions of the state have to be questioned. those of the capital. those of other forms of oppression. but we mustn't forget the other struggle too, the struggle for adventure, for the fantastic. we need to pave a way for ecstasy. for a true anarchy, an anarchy of the wondrous, of the brilliant.
Revolution Or Interest
i have had it with mediocre art being defended; with claims that art shouldn't meddle in politics; that art should be seen on its own, not being associated with social issues; and not other issues either; i've had it with talentless artists praising their meaningless, bullshit art, abusing the rightful idea of "freedom of artistic expression" - yes artistic expression should not be quenched - but i retain my freedom to call your art boring if it is boring.
let's get rid of all that postmodern, substanceless art, that is completely generic, without goal, aim or purpose, all in the name of being "pure art", free from the seemingly drag of politics or cultural issues. yes, pure art might indeed exist or be viable - but your art isn't, it is not pure, it is dirt.
i propose the following: art should be revolutionary again. anarchistic. anticapitalistic. subversive. rebellious. against the status quo. for a free, just society. for ecstasy. or, if it is not, willingly - as i said, i value the freedom of the artist, he or she can of course be free of politics (although this might be a bit of a hard task, as everything is inherently political) - then at least have an interesting idea, concept, purpose with your art. something that is new, well-thought out, beautiful, groundbreaking, that was not there before. revolution or interest - that should be the claim. revolution or bust. if you don't want to be revolutionary in politics - at least be a revolutionary in mind. bring me something that stimulates my mind. that gives people new thoughts. but don't bore me with your generic art that has no purpose or substance, that wants to achieve nothing at all (there is indeed a way this could work - but this would have its place in another text), that sets not out to conquer gold, to reach out for the exciting.
be revolutionary. for a revolution of the mind. of society. but best - for both.
let's get rid of all that postmodern, substanceless art, that is completely generic, without goal, aim or purpose, all in the name of being "pure art", free from the seemingly drag of politics or cultural issues. yes, pure art might indeed exist or be viable - but your art isn't, it is not pure, it is dirt.
i propose the following: art should be revolutionary again. anarchistic. anticapitalistic. subversive. rebellious. against the status quo. for a free, just society. for ecstasy. or, if it is not, willingly - as i said, i value the freedom of the artist, he or she can of course be free of politics (although this might be a bit of a hard task, as everything is inherently political) - then at least have an interesting idea, concept, purpose with your art. something that is new, well-thought out, beautiful, groundbreaking, that was not there before. revolution or interest - that should be the claim. revolution or bust. if you don't want to be revolutionary in politics - at least be a revolutionary in mind. bring me something that stimulates my mind. that gives people new thoughts. but don't bore me with your generic art that has no purpose or substance, that wants to achieve nothing at all (there is indeed a way this could work - but this would have its place in another text), that sets not out to conquer gold, to reach out for the exciting.
be revolutionary. for a revolution of the mind. of society. but best - for both.
Music Is Dead - Long Live Music!
for the last years, i've becoming more and more interested in a certain kind of music. sometimes, it's the only thing that interests me in music. i am not alone in my preference; i guess a million people discovered this special form of music, and enjoy it and crave to hear more. the problem is, this form of music has no name.
and, even its most dedicated listeners, might not even know that this kind of music does exist at all.
what am i talking about?
well, in western music, especially in the 20th century, there has always been the attempt to break out of the framework of music. especially in academic and avantgarde music. it has reached a point where it's not easy to go on from; we have had music of pure noise, random sounds, or silence - how more extreme can you get? how more rules can you bend? how can you progress from that, and create something wholly new?
it is easy. just abandon music altogether. but still make music. for music is dead - but long live music!
what do i mean with that? let me tell you the history of how i discovered this "kind of music". it arose out of chat sessions i had with some of my friends; it was, for us, the days of hardcore techno; but we had grown intensively bored with this genre. so we send ourselves suggestions for other kinds of music, bands, songs, that one should listen to. this was from all over the map; rock, ballads, 60s, 90s, classic, all mixed up. what i noticed after a while, was, that style was not so important at all. in each genre, there were songs that were special and stood out. but it was not easy to say what was special or different. take 60s music for example; some songs of it shine bright, and are different from the efforts of their contemporary bands. yet, the use the same set up of instruments, singing style etc. where is the difference?
it took me a while to realise what was going on.
they simply had a quality, that was not just in the set up of instruments, in the melodic key they used, i.e. in none of the musical and sonic categories. their brilliance was above the music, and its framework.
there was just something that stood out, was different, which could not be explained in musical or sonic terms or qualities.
this doesn't mean, of course, that there was something else, that was not music, to their songs; the instruments, singing, melody, transported this brilliance; but they also transcended it.
there is a quality of music that can not be explained by rhythms, chords, lyrics, pace, keys, harmonies, song structure and so on. it transcends music. it is something different to the very structure of a song or piece of music.
it expresses something, but it does so in its own way, in a special way.
say, you have the traditional setup: guitar, bass, drums etc. you could use them to create songs that are similar to other music in that style; or you could create special songs, which transcend this setting; which are unique, and can not be attributed to the use, or the way, structure, form it is used, of these instruments. it is something of its own, which is outside the structure, outside the form, outside the instruments.
there can be something else to music, which can not be easily explained. some songs, some artists, just 'have' it, and others don't. in musical terms, it could not be written down what this is - but it is there, and people recognize it, as many agree on certain songs, which have this specialness, this quality.
let us look at it another way to show this:
a musician has a certain idea for a song. now, with this theory on mind, the musical framework or sound is not important. he wants to write a deep, philosophical song. he could use rock for this. or techno. or folk. or a classical setting. he could write a bassline, drum and percussion only 'dance' song or an acoustic guitar folk song. yet, his message would still be the same. the point of his music would be the same, regardless of the method. because the method, the structure of music have been overcome. it is not in the music and the structure anymore. it is outside of it.
this is a break from the past, where certain attributes, qualities, intentions were attributed to genres such as rock, pop, dance. etc
for music is dead - and long live music!
and, even its most dedicated listeners, might not even know that this kind of music does exist at all.
what am i talking about?
well, in western music, especially in the 20th century, there has always been the attempt to break out of the framework of music. especially in academic and avantgarde music. it has reached a point where it's not easy to go on from; we have had music of pure noise, random sounds, or silence - how more extreme can you get? how more rules can you bend? how can you progress from that, and create something wholly new?
it is easy. just abandon music altogether. but still make music. for music is dead - but long live music!
what do i mean with that? let me tell you the history of how i discovered this "kind of music". it arose out of chat sessions i had with some of my friends; it was, for us, the days of hardcore techno; but we had grown intensively bored with this genre. so we send ourselves suggestions for other kinds of music, bands, songs, that one should listen to. this was from all over the map; rock, ballads, 60s, 90s, classic, all mixed up. what i noticed after a while, was, that style was not so important at all. in each genre, there were songs that were special and stood out. but it was not easy to say what was special or different. take 60s music for example; some songs of it shine bright, and are different from the efforts of their contemporary bands. yet, the use the same set up of instruments, singing style etc. where is the difference?
it took me a while to realise what was going on.
they simply had a quality, that was not just in the set up of instruments, in the melodic key they used, i.e. in none of the musical and sonic categories. their brilliance was above the music, and its framework.
there was just something that stood out, was different, which could not be explained in musical or sonic terms or qualities.
this doesn't mean, of course, that there was something else, that was not music, to their songs; the instruments, singing, melody, transported this brilliance; but they also transcended it.
there is a quality of music that can not be explained by rhythms, chords, lyrics, pace, keys, harmonies, song structure and so on. it transcends music. it is something different to the very structure of a song or piece of music.
it expresses something, but it does so in its own way, in a special way.
say, you have the traditional setup: guitar, bass, drums etc. you could use them to create songs that are similar to other music in that style; or you could create special songs, which transcend this setting; which are unique, and can not be attributed to the use, or the way, structure, form it is used, of these instruments. it is something of its own, which is outside the structure, outside the form, outside the instruments.
there can be something else to music, which can not be easily explained. some songs, some artists, just 'have' it, and others don't. in musical terms, it could not be written down what this is - but it is there, and people recognize it, as many agree on certain songs, which have this specialness, this quality.
let us look at it another way to show this:
a musician has a certain idea for a song. now, with this theory on mind, the musical framework or sound is not important. he wants to write a deep, philosophical song. he could use rock for this. or techno. or folk. or a classical setting. he could write a bassline, drum and percussion only 'dance' song or an acoustic guitar folk song. yet, his message would still be the same. the point of his music would be the same, regardless of the method. because the method, the structure of music have been overcome. it is not in the music and the structure anymore. it is outside of it.
this is a break from the past, where certain attributes, qualities, intentions were attributed to genres such as rock, pop, dance. etc
for music is dead - and long live music!
How To Create New Forms Of Music
there has been some talk about the stagnation of music lately; also, there has been the opinion that the evolution of music has reached a final stage, and that no new genres, styles, bigger concepts and bigger changes in music are possible anymore. that everything has been their already in some way, and is there, and not much new can come after this present point of music. from a rational point this is of course laughable; and reminds one of those scientists in the middle ages, in the victorian ages, or way before that maybe, who also thought that 'everything was discovered' already, all riddles of the universe solved - only to be disproved by the decades to come. if you think there could be no new musical concepts, genres, fields - this like a man around galileo's time thinking that nothing would come anymore after the theory that the sun revolves around the earth, as this is somewhat a "final point" in science.
but it must be said, that the musical evolution has really somewhat stagnated in the 1 or 2 decades. there is no "that" groundbreaking new style or new movement. the music that is listened to these days belongs mostly to categories that are around for more than 20 years already: rock, techno, hiphop... that would've been as if the 60s youth hadn't listened to the doors and jefferson airplane, but only to the same music as their parents, or maybe grandparents, did. no rebellious youth movement in sight! no call for utopia, musically or politically.
this tendency is then somewhat used as a proof that no music of a completely new character is possible anymore. if it was, why didn't it evolve in the last decades?
so what is the truth about this? it is that new music, completely new genres, completely new concepts, are very much possible, they are definitely possible. and they are actually not hard to come by with. a new music movement could easily be created.
okay, so how does one arrive at new music?
easy. just use your mind. your ability to reason. think of how new music could be possible, how new music would be. analyze it, reflect it, ponder on it. or, more exactly: try to think of what wasn't there before. what defines the music that has been around? what could be done elsewise? what would be "new"? what was overlooked so far? what has not been tried out yet?
and, more exactly, you will see that most music so far has followed rules; and a lot of them have not been broken that much yet; get rid of the rules and you can create new music as easy drinking a glass of water.
and, even more exactly, these are for example the rhythms and time signatures, that are being followed rigidly so far. there are not much techno tracks with a 7/9 rhythm, yes? or that slow down and speed up while they play? now, 7/9 techno would not that be of a complete "new genre". but it would be already a nice change. this was just exploring one concept - the rhythm - and the rest stayed the same, which is why it's not that groundbreaking yet. get rid of all, or most rules - and the new sound is there.
look at all concepts in music. reflect them, criticize them, change them, move ahead from then. then you have new music.
so, the question is, when the evolution, or revolution of music is done as "easily" - be sure, the task might be harder than it looks - why, oh why, has it not been done already? are all producers stupid or what. no, they are not stupid. but after the last revolution in music; with genres like techno, rave, hardcore, ambient, there has been a massive anti-intellectual current in the music scenes. *thinking* of musical concepts, intellectualizing music, analyzing it and reflecting it is seen as highly suspicious. there is a current that music must not be intellectual, but emotional, physical, for dancing, for feelings, and not food for your heads, for the intellect. it should be said that emotion, "fun", and partying is not contradictory in essence, to the contrary. techno was intellectual music at first, and it made a million ravers go nuts on the dancefloor.
so, yes, the move right now is that music should be "emotional", as in indie pop ballads about sad, sad topics of life(i use sarcasm here), or pre-cut formula based house music that is for "partying" or "clubbing" and dancing. that is not reflected or intellectual.
but, this is where the change begins. music has to be intellectual in origin, in intention, in mode again. it has to be smart again.
so, start your head, feed your mind, think, debate, question, criticize. and new music will come to you easily.
but it must be said, that the musical evolution has really somewhat stagnated in the 1 or 2 decades. there is no "that" groundbreaking new style or new movement. the music that is listened to these days belongs mostly to categories that are around for more than 20 years already: rock, techno, hiphop... that would've been as if the 60s youth hadn't listened to the doors and jefferson airplane, but only to the same music as their parents, or maybe grandparents, did. no rebellious youth movement in sight! no call for utopia, musically or politically.
this tendency is then somewhat used as a proof that no music of a completely new character is possible anymore. if it was, why didn't it evolve in the last decades?
so what is the truth about this? it is that new music, completely new genres, completely new concepts, are very much possible, they are definitely possible. and they are actually not hard to come by with. a new music movement could easily be created.
okay, so how does one arrive at new music?
easy. just use your mind. your ability to reason. think of how new music could be possible, how new music would be. analyze it, reflect it, ponder on it. or, more exactly: try to think of what wasn't there before. what defines the music that has been around? what could be done elsewise? what would be "new"? what was overlooked so far? what has not been tried out yet?
and, more exactly, you will see that most music so far has followed rules; and a lot of them have not been broken that much yet; get rid of the rules and you can create new music as easy drinking a glass of water.
and, even more exactly, these are for example the rhythms and time signatures, that are being followed rigidly so far. there are not much techno tracks with a 7/9 rhythm, yes? or that slow down and speed up while they play? now, 7/9 techno would not that be of a complete "new genre". but it would be already a nice change. this was just exploring one concept - the rhythm - and the rest stayed the same, which is why it's not that groundbreaking yet. get rid of all, or most rules - and the new sound is there.
look at all concepts in music. reflect them, criticize them, change them, move ahead from then. then you have new music.
so, the question is, when the evolution, or revolution of music is done as "easily" - be sure, the task might be harder than it looks - why, oh why, has it not been done already? are all producers stupid or what. no, they are not stupid. but after the last revolution in music; with genres like techno, rave, hardcore, ambient, there has been a massive anti-intellectual current in the music scenes. *thinking* of musical concepts, intellectualizing music, analyzing it and reflecting it is seen as highly suspicious. there is a current that music must not be intellectual, but emotional, physical, for dancing, for feelings, and not food for your heads, for the intellect. it should be said that emotion, "fun", and partying is not contradictory in essence, to the contrary. techno was intellectual music at first, and it made a million ravers go nuts on the dancefloor.
so, yes, the move right now is that music should be "emotional", as in indie pop ballads about sad, sad topics of life(i use sarcasm here), or pre-cut formula based house music that is for "partying" or "clubbing" and dancing. that is not reflected or intellectual.
but, this is where the change begins. music has to be intellectual in origin, in intention, in mode again. it has to be smart again.
so, start your head, feed your mind, think, debate, question, criticize. and new music will come to you easily.
The Closedness Of Possibilities
when listening to music of various decades, i can't help to feel that there is somewhat of a gap somewhere around 1980. there is a lack of vision, or maybe not that, as there was quite some experimentation - but the creativity, to most part, doesn't feel as bright anymore, and more importantly, there is a lack of freedom. both directly - think of the improvised, jammed electronic krautrock of the 70s, without time signatures, without set rules, and the overly sequenced, pinned to a straight formula, electronics of the 80s. but also in expression, in feeling, in emotion. but this is also in society. could've been the resistance of the 60s and 70s still be possible in the 80s? utopian ideas hit the youth in the 60s, and they were convinced by it, and ventured out, wanted to go beyond the straight path, the given society, the given circumstances. and their minds were free enough to know the truth of this. who could still dream of a utopian society in the 80s? who still worked for revolution - and deemed it possible? of course there were some - probably more as in the 2000 decade. but nothing compared to the 60s.
in the 80s, society as it is, with capitalists and yuppies and consumer goods, and government and cops and restrictions and boredom, exceeding boredom, was more or less accepted by the majority. they thought they "knew" life, the world, went like this, and no change was possibility. people hadn't the creativity, the imagination, the free intellect anymore, to envision, conceive a different society, a different life, a different world.
the possibilities of life, of society, of the world, had been closed. but not by laws or a police force or the military. but in imagination, in the heads of people, in their minds. for utopia is always a possibility, at least for your own life - but their ideas, of "how the world was and is always gonna be" had been fixed in their heads, unchangeable.
of course this didn't just go for social change and utopia. everything became more strict, frozen, solid. as shows, to me, in the music too, where the freedom of expression and breaking down of all rules was replaced with very fixed, rigid musical structures again.
even in the realm of pop, the music of the 70s felt more free than the computerized, sequenced, numb pop of the 80s.
which does of course not mean that wondrous music works or ideas could not be found in the 80s too; but they became rare and their quality changed.
this is not a straight progression either; in the 90s, in the ambient experiments, parts of industrial metal and rock music, in all the techno genres, this freedom came back; experimentation was possible anymore, and the breaking of rules. yet the rules were never as abandoned as in 2 and 3 decades before the 90s. yet there was a feel of freedom again, and of utopia, and the rave, techno, trance subculture clang to a lot of utopian ideals in their beginning, if not as outright political as it would have been preferable, maybe.
during the end of the 90s, with the first decade of the 2000s, the closedness of possibilities became more total than ever. the utopia of rave was gone. music became more pre-designed, formula-based, pre-cut, factorylike created as ever before. with 1000s of mindless mainstream pop tunes being churned out that felt more soulless and similar than ever before. oh, that doesn't mean that pop in the 70s or 60s was necessarily a honest business. but it was not as imprisoning for the mind as the music became after 2000s.
and, again, as these things are connected, the same happened on a social and cultural scale too. it was the time i ventured into the real world anarchist scenes. even these anarchists didn't believe in revolution or change anymore. maybe, maybe, in a century ahead. but not anytime soon, not a possibility in one's experienced life.
and it was the time the "standard life" was prescribed for the masses, beat down deeply into their minds; having a "good job", a house, a wife, two-three kids. basing ones life on consumer goods; the best car, the best TV set, the best electronic toys. not being a rebel, not rising up, not venturing for utopia. and almost anyone fell for this. imagination had been limited once again.
and, capitalist society, even though it's crises were more visible before, was now accepted as a total fact, unfightable, unchangeable. 'society was like this, and ever will be like this'. 'you have to accept the world as it is'. the freedom of the minds of people, to conceive of a different world, a different life, a different society, was gone. they only accepted the world as it was presented a million times over and over again by the mindnumbing mass media. no exploration of different ways possible anymore.
now it's 2014, and just like in the 90s, things seem to change once again. the minds of people seem to be more active, more free again. there is a new interest in anarchy, in anarchism and utopia, as i mentioned elsewhere. new social models and lifepaths are debated again.
also the music seems to be more free again. seems to have more vision again. yet, the test if this holds true for me is, and should always be, how "rules" in music are treated. if rules in music are fixed and followed and "have to be" followed, a freedom of the mind is not possible. same goes for society. so let's see how the attitude towards rules goes along.
i could very well imagine we are heading for utopia again. let's hope it's true.
in the 80s, society as it is, with capitalists and yuppies and consumer goods, and government and cops and restrictions and boredom, exceeding boredom, was more or less accepted by the majority. they thought they "knew" life, the world, went like this, and no change was possibility. people hadn't the creativity, the imagination, the free intellect anymore, to envision, conceive a different society, a different life, a different world.
the possibilities of life, of society, of the world, had been closed. but not by laws or a police force or the military. but in imagination, in the heads of people, in their minds. for utopia is always a possibility, at least for your own life - but their ideas, of "how the world was and is always gonna be" had been fixed in their heads, unchangeable.
of course this didn't just go for social change and utopia. everything became more strict, frozen, solid. as shows, to me, in the music too, where the freedom of expression and breaking down of all rules was replaced with very fixed, rigid musical structures again.
even in the realm of pop, the music of the 70s felt more free than the computerized, sequenced, numb pop of the 80s.
which does of course not mean that wondrous music works or ideas could not be found in the 80s too; but they became rare and their quality changed.
this is not a straight progression either; in the 90s, in the ambient experiments, parts of industrial metal and rock music, in all the techno genres, this freedom came back; experimentation was possible anymore, and the breaking of rules. yet the rules were never as abandoned as in 2 and 3 decades before the 90s. yet there was a feel of freedom again, and of utopia, and the rave, techno, trance subculture clang to a lot of utopian ideals in their beginning, if not as outright political as it would have been preferable, maybe.
during the end of the 90s, with the first decade of the 2000s, the closedness of possibilities became more total than ever. the utopia of rave was gone. music became more pre-designed, formula-based, pre-cut, factorylike created as ever before. with 1000s of mindless mainstream pop tunes being churned out that felt more soulless and similar than ever before. oh, that doesn't mean that pop in the 70s or 60s was necessarily a honest business. but it was not as imprisoning for the mind as the music became after 2000s.
and, again, as these things are connected, the same happened on a social and cultural scale too. it was the time i ventured into the real world anarchist scenes. even these anarchists didn't believe in revolution or change anymore. maybe, maybe, in a century ahead. but not anytime soon, not a possibility in one's experienced life.
and it was the time the "standard life" was prescribed for the masses, beat down deeply into their minds; having a "good job", a house, a wife, two-three kids. basing ones life on consumer goods; the best car, the best TV set, the best electronic toys. not being a rebel, not rising up, not venturing for utopia. and almost anyone fell for this. imagination had been limited once again.
and, capitalist society, even though it's crises were more visible before, was now accepted as a total fact, unfightable, unchangeable. 'society was like this, and ever will be like this'. 'you have to accept the world as it is'. the freedom of the minds of people, to conceive of a different world, a different life, a different society, was gone. they only accepted the world as it was presented a million times over and over again by the mindnumbing mass media. no exploration of different ways possible anymore.
now it's 2014, and just like in the 90s, things seem to change once again. the minds of people seem to be more active, more free again. there is a new interest in anarchy, in anarchism and utopia, as i mentioned elsewhere. new social models and lifepaths are debated again.
also the music seems to be more free again. seems to have more vision again. yet, the test if this holds true for me is, and should always be, how "rules" in music are treated. if rules in music are fixed and followed and "have to be" followed, a freedom of the mind is not possible. same goes for society. so let's see how the attitude towards rules goes along.
i could very well imagine we are heading for utopia again. let's hope it's true.
Revolution and Reaction
human society seems to always have been driven by two forces, those of revolution and reaction. those who set out to change it, and those that tried to keep everything at it is. this is already a quite massive concept; yet i think it goes even farther, even deeper than that. it would be wrong, in my opinion, to just say that those of the reaction just want to "keep things", and also not those of the revolution to "change things"; just not progress and standstill. there is something more. this is where the focus of the revolution lies.
most people's life, their whole life, resolves around things they know, and those are direct, tangible, obvious. their job, their home, their boss, their government and so on. things they know, that they can see, "touch", at least theoretically. that's the life they know, how it has always been. now, the revolutionary has something different. he set's out to change this; but this is not his main motor. the important thing is what he focuses on. and these are, ideals, ideas, theories, concepts, thoughts, vision, imagination, creativity, dreams. he has an idea, like justice, like freedom, like equality, like creativity. and this is where the reactionary and the revolutionary part. because this idea is not part of the tangible, familiar world that the reactionary knows. it does not lie in his job, his city, his government, his authorities, as he knows it. as it is an idea, not something tangible, not something you can see face to face, that you can encounter. and this is what scares reactionaries so deeply, and makes them more afraid as if their whole country would light up in flames, or if they would be chased in a forest by a thousand wolves. that there are ideas, ideals, concepts that are not just "tangible" - that are ideal, utopian, different, pure, honest. because the existence of this gives them a deep fear. for them, what is tangible, direct, is what is "holy" to them, so to say. the government - as it is. the family - as it is. the nation - as it is. that an utopian nation, a utopian society, a utopian community could exist, that is based not on "what is", but on ideas, theories, is something they can not take. because this means there is more than to what they know - not what they encounter every day, but what goes beyond this - ideals, utopian thoughts, dreams.
the revolutionary, on the other hand, doesn't care about what is tangible. how "things are", and about which is said they they "always been this way and always will be". he cares about dreams and visions.
and he rightly does so. because what is ideal, in ideas, is much much important, much more pure and impressive than the world "as it is".
thus, the revolutionary and the reactionary can never meet, and thus society will swing each centuries between these focal points; until one day, maybe, utopian revolution will win over.
most people's life, their whole life, resolves around things they know, and those are direct, tangible, obvious. their job, their home, their boss, their government and so on. things they know, that they can see, "touch", at least theoretically. that's the life they know, how it has always been. now, the revolutionary has something different. he set's out to change this; but this is not his main motor. the important thing is what he focuses on. and these are, ideals, ideas, theories, concepts, thoughts, vision, imagination, creativity, dreams. he has an idea, like justice, like freedom, like equality, like creativity. and this is where the reactionary and the revolutionary part. because this idea is not part of the tangible, familiar world that the reactionary knows. it does not lie in his job, his city, his government, his authorities, as he knows it. as it is an idea, not something tangible, not something you can see face to face, that you can encounter. and this is what scares reactionaries so deeply, and makes them more afraid as if their whole country would light up in flames, or if they would be chased in a forest by a thousand wolves. that there are ideas, ideals, concepts that are not just "tangible" - that are ideal, utopian, different, pure, honest. because the existence of this gives them a deep fear. for them, what is tangible, direct, is what is "holy" to them, so to say. the government - as it is. the family - as it is. the nation - as it is. that an utopian nation, a utopian society, a utopian community could exist, that is based not on "what is", but on ideas, theories, is something they can not take. because this means there is more than to what they know - not what they encounter every day, but what goes beyond this - ideals, utopian thoughts, dreams.
the revolutionary, on the other hand, doesn't care about what is tangible. how "things are", and about which is said they they "always been this way and always will be". he cares about dreams and visions.
and he rightly does so. because what is ideal, in ideas, is much much important, much more pure and impressive than the world "as it is".
thus, the revolutionary and the reactionary can never meet, and thus society will swing each centuries between these focal points; until one day, maybe, utopian revolution will win over.
How Critical Debate Is Prevented
Recently i noticed there are several methods that are often occur in debates, discussion, dialogues, when it comes to questioning things of the status quo, of capitalism, of "free market" society, of western society.
some of them are pretty intricate and seem clever - and convincing - at first, but when one understands them it is easy to see through them.
1. "it's complicated."
you hate to hear it in a relationship, and i hate it in debates too. when one criticizes the government, corporations, social problems, certain laws or actions, people react: 'oh, but you can't see it all black and white. there is more to it. it is more complicated. there is no easy solution. you have to see it from all sides.'
this brings us to the core problem underlying these "intellectual" methods: that those who use it take sides themselves, well the whole point of them bringing up is to take sides. the same conservatives who pull the "it's complicated" card when animal rights or fighting misogyny is brought up, do not find it is "complicated" when the issue is war, or police force, or the free market.
when you ask them if the police is necessary in a modern society, they won't say "not sure - it's complicated" they give a hearty, biased, dumb "yes" without trying to see this "from all sides" themselves. same when asking them if capitalism is necessary.
2. "do we know anything at all?"
while this might mostly occur to a stoner listening to a psyrock song, it is also used by conservatives of all walks of life in any conversations. 'you anarchists, you leftists think you are on the right side. but what is really 'right'? how can you be sure? can anyone truly say know he is 'right'?' similar issues are addressed on whether one is fighting for a "good" cause or not. 'maybe the good of the anarchists is the bad for the others', and such. while it is necessary to questions ones own definition of right and good now and then, generally getting lost in this is a cause of philosophical bullshitits. really it's a case for high schoolers on their first acid trip, to wonder if we ever find out what is "good" or "true". you should not fall to social inactivity just because others doubt the answer. fight for your causes, if it's a good cause!
similar, the taking sides phenomena is here of course too, as the conservatives who question the goodwill of the anarchists don't doubt the goodwill of the "brave" politicians-idiots and generals who run western countries and declare war on innocent nations.
3. "isn't everything the same?"
if you didn't think conservatives have the minds of people who went the wrong road with LSD, now you can be sure. after raising the question "do we know anything at all" we get "isn't everything the same". 'you leftradicals seem to quite like the rightwing radicals in your fanaticism, didn't this occur to you? isn't left and right really similar? can you be sure? are you not the very thing you are fighting against?'. again, a severe case of philosophical bullshit dilemma. no, the left is not like the right, anarchists are not fascists, radical feminists are very different from radical male chauvinists. yes, it should be noted that one should not become the enemy oneself - it's funny this worry is raised by people who already very much are "the enemy" themselves - but again this should not lead to the point of a philosophical wormhole, where everything is "somehow" the same and everything can be exchanged, yadda yadda.
4. rationalization
this is the method that is mostly often used. the thing is, you can rationalize everything. eating humans to solve the world hunger problem? people could find rationalizations for that. total surveillance? yes some find pros for that. so, for everything the status quo does a rationalization can be found.
this method might be the hardest to fight. but it is also very easy to see through, as the rationalization is used for any thing *of* the status quo, but for nothing that is against it.
you can find a lot of people who use rationalization when a policeman uses unlawful force on a youth. yet the same people won't rationalize it if the same youth uses "unlawful force" on some yuppie. yet there could be a lot of rationalization found for this too; if only that he was hungry and needed the money to get some food.
but you will never see people apply this rationalization, yet constantly trying to find of reasons and logic to defend everything of the status quo.
the "taking sides" is very easy to see here, and this enables one to see through this tactic.
there were some tactics the conservative and reactionaries, who seem to be everywhere these days, use to defend the status quo, to defend western society and it's misdeeds and problems. maybe these hints can help you to see through these methods.
some of them are pretty intricate and seem clever - and convincing - at first, but when one understands them it is easy to see through them.
1. "it's complicated."
you hate to hear it in a relationship, and i hate it in debates too. when one criticizes the government, corporations, social problems, certain laws or actions, people react: 'oh, but you can't see it all black and white. there is more to it. it is more complicated. there is no easy solution. you have to see it from all sides.'
this brings us to the core problem underlying these "intellectual" methods: that those who use it take sides themselves, well the whole point of them bringing up is to take sides. the same conservatives who pull the "it's complicated" card when animal rights or fighting misogyny is brought up, do not find it is "complicated" when the issue is war, or police force, or the free market.
when you ask them if the police is necessary in a modern society, they won't say "not sure - it's complicated" they give a hearty, biased, dumb "yes" without trying to see this "from all sides" themselves. same when asking them if capitalism is necessary.
2. "do we know anything at all?"
while this might mostly occur to a stoner listening to a psyrock song, it is also used by conservatives of all walks of life in any conversations. 'you anarchists, you leftists think you are on the right side. but what is really 'right'? how can you be sure? can anyone truly say know he is 'right'?' similar issues are addressed on whether one is fighting for a "good" cause or not. 'maybe the good of the anarchists is the bad for the others', and such. while it is necessary to questions ones own definition of right and good now and then, generally getting lost in this is a cause of philosophical bullshitits. really it's a case for high schoolers on their first acid trip, to wonder if we ever find out what is "good" or "true". you should not fall to social inactivity just because others doubt the answer. fight for your causes, if it's a good cause!
similar, the taking sides phenomena is here of course too, as the conservatives who question the goodwill of the anarchists don't doubt the goodwill of the "brave" politicians-idiots and generals who run western countries and declare war on innocent nations.
3. "isn't everything the same?"
if you didn't think conservatives have the minds of people who went the wrong road with LSD, now you can be sure. after raising the question "do we know anything at all" we get "isn't everything the same". 'you leftradicals seem to quite like the rightwing radicals in your fanaticism, didn't this occur to you? isn't left and right really similar? can you be sure? are you not the very thing you are fighting against?'. again, a severe case of philosophical bullshit dilemma. no, the left is not like the right, anarchists are not fascists, radical feminists are very different from radical male chauvinists. yes, it should be noted that one should not become the enemy oneself - it's funny this worry is raised by people who already very much are "the enemy" themselves - but again this should not lead to the point of a philosophical wormhole, where everything is "somehow" the same and everything can be exchanged, yadda yadda.
4. rationalization
this is the method that is mostly often used. the thing is, you can rationalize everything. eating humans to solve the world hunger problem? people could find rationalizations for that. total surveillance? yes some find pros for that. so, for everything the status quo does a rationalization can be found.
this method might be the hardest to fight. but it is also very easy to see through, as the rationalization is used for any thing *of* the status quo, but for nothing that is against it.
you can find a lot of people who use rationalization when a policeman uses unlawful force on a youth. yet the same people won't rationalize it if the same youth uses "unlawful force" on some yuppie. yet there could be a lot of rationalization found for this too; if only that he was hungry and needed the money to get some food.
but you will never see people apply this rationalization, yet constantly trying to find of reasons and logic to defend everything of the status quo.
the "taking sides" is very easy to see here, and this enables one to see through this tactic.
there were some tactics the conservative and reactionaries, who seem to be everywhere these days, use to defend the status quo, to defend western society and it's misdeeds and problems. maybe these hints can help you to see through these methods.
Techno - Needs More Synthetics
in the last years i probably listened less to electronics and techno than to rock and other genres. this was because i was looking for a certain "earthy" quality in music, that for example 70s heavy metal had, or funk had, or hip hop had. to listen to music, that feels groovy, "funky", makes you want to dance and to move. i noticed that techno could have that quality too; detroit comes to mind; the proto-detroit of cybotron. the early acidhouse and rave around 88-92. the techno i used to love as a teen; the hardtrance, and complex techno recordings of the mid 90s, became bland too me. the sound sounded so plastic to me; the synth, the drums, everything, even the basslines. completely different to the "funk" of early house. it felt so artificial, so synthetic.
now, this has turned the opposite direction for me. the "synthetic" quality of hardtrance and rave productions of mid 90s is very fascinating for me; the way to go. when it is done intentionally, it is great; to make music of pure logic, purely artificial, abstract - not "earthy" in any way! i noticed there is more music that has that quality to me; electronic krautrock of the 70s (also, paradoxical, at the same time, very earthy). chiptunes. amiga .mod music.
also, of course the experimental hardcore of the mid to late 90s was like that, an all out attack on anything funky groove. for me it is the way to go for the future. need more synthetics! pure abstraction.
now, this has turned the opposite direction for me. the "synthetic" quality of hardtrance and rave productions of mid 90s is very fascinating for me; the way to go. when it is done intentionally, it is great; to make music of pure logic, purely artificial, abstract - not "earthy" in any way! i noticed there is more music that has that quality to me; electronic krautrock of the 70s (also, paradoxical, at the same time, very earthy). chiptunes. amiga .mod music.
also, of course the experimental hardcore of the mid to late 90s was like that, an all out attack on anything funky groove. for me it is the way to go for the future. need more synthetics! pure abstraction.
Art And Utopia
there are people who suggest music to me, various styles, the established genres, the "established niches"; they say the music is really nice, good produced, exciting, well-made, interesting, enjoyable; good to party too, good to chill too, or good to listen to in other occurrences.
but, when i listen to this music, i ask myself, what has this music to do with me, how does it relate to me, how does it relate to my live, my heart; to my dreams, my desires, my thoughts, my wishes; how does it enable me to change my life, to rise above the circumstances; how does it enable me to reach utopia; how does it enable me to reach my dreams? and does it give me new dreams, now wondrous thoughts, adventure, the wonderful?
there is music like that. there was music like that. but most music, today, or maybe in the past too, is not like it. but there also is different music.
the hippies thought their music could change the world. to overthrow the establishment. to create an utopia. the punks thought they could fight society and win.
where are these artists now? where are the bands? is there an artist who honestly, deeply thinks his music could change society from the bottom up? to reach utopia? that, by his music, he could create a better world?
no, current music, current artists, are devoid of these things. because these ideas and ideals are dead for them. because any ideal, that is not "money" or "success" is dead to them. soulless music by soulless artists for soulless consumers.
who still thinks there is a revolution, of society, a political and cultural revolution, in the west possible by music and counterculture? no one? if not, why not?
or if that is too "political" for you - then: to make a better world, on a large scale, by music and art?
or at least to change your life and that of others - to a wondrous, sweet, beautiful, perfect thing?
no, these ideas seem to be gone. because people are without vision and concept now - or rather, without knowledge and insight. these ideas are still true. the ideals are still true. you can reach utopia, a revolution, anarchy - if only for yourself. it is possible.
i painted a bleak picture - i am sure there are some artists out there who still do it for the "cause". and i know there are at least still listeners - the word "listeners" is to passive, i say activists - who believe art can bring a change, and believe in revolution and anarchy, or at least in utopia, and in ideals.
and we might very likely grow in numbers soon.
the point is not to give up - but to hope, to be sure, and to be active.
but, when i listen to this music, i ask myself, what has this music to do with me, how does it relate to me, how does it relate to my live, my heart; to my dreams, my desires, my thoughts, my wishes; how does it enable me to change my life, to rise above the circumstances; how does it enable me to reach utopia; how does it enable me to reach my dreams? and does it give me new dreams, now wondrous thoughts, adventure, the wonderful?
there is music like that. there was music like that. but most music, today, or maybe in the past too, is not like it. but there also is different music.
the hippies thought their music could change the world. to overthrow the establishment. to create an utopia. the punks thought they could fight society and win.
where are these artists now? where are the bands? is there an artist who honestly, deeply thinks his music could change society from the bottom up? to reach utopia? that, by his music, he could create a better world?
no, current music, current artists, are devoid of these things. because these ideas and ideals are dead for them. because any ideal, that is not "money" or "success" is dead to them. soulless music by soulless artists for soulless consumers.
who still thinks there is a revolution, of society, a political and cultural revolution, in the west possible by music and counterculture? no one? if not, why not?
or if that is too "political" for you - then: to make a better world, on a large scale, by music and art?
or at least to change your life and that of others - to a wondrous, sweet, beautiful, perfect thing?
no, these ideas seem to be gone. because people are without vision and concept now - or rather, without knowledge and insight. these ideas are still true. the ideals are still true. you can reach utopia, a revolution, anarchy - if only for yourself. it is possible.
i painted a bleak picture - i am sure there are some artists out there who still do it for the "cause". and i know there are at least still listeners - the word "listeners" is to passive, i say activists - who believe art can bring a change, and believe in revolution and anarchy, or at least in utopia, and in ideals.
and we might very likely grow in numbers soon.
the point is not to give up - but to hope, to be sure, and to be active.
Our Current Crisis Of Culture
it is obvious and easy to realize what the current crisis of culture is. and it is easy to explain, why this crisis is so plainly visible to many - while to others it is invisible, even to the point that they insist there would be no crisis at all.
in the last decade of the 20th century, people were bored with the generic tripe that polluted the music area - all that cheesy eurodisco, all those ridiculous poser "hardrock" bands, and so on. instead they wanted new, fresh, different, groundbreaking, breathtaking ideas, concepts. and they got them. some created techno, acid, others dark ambient, breakcore, or other experimental and different music. it is impossible for those who did not live that era to realize how hard these sounds hit everyone; how the feeling of revolution and utopia and paradise music spread. because they are used to it now; but those living then, were not.
now, for nostalgics, the scheme is easy: revolution was in the air; we go to techno paradise, experimental music will break through, forgone by the rock relics and the boring pop genres. but, according to them, something went wrong, and the revolution failed and did not come. but nothing could be more from the truth.
we had our techno revolution. we had our breakcore revolution. we had our dark ambient move. and - we won.
and this is exactly the problem. if we were just crushed by the state repression, or this music had never left its shell, the situation would be much better now. where is the problem with this, with this successful change?
because, we wanted new ideas, new movements, new society. and we have them. but, now, as they're established - they are simply not new ideas anymore. "our" new ideas are the old ideas now. what was once revolutionary - techno and its genres - is now reactionary. because life is about change, about movement, about breaking from the past each time anew. it cannot stop, it must not stop. yes, the techno breakthrough, the breakcore moment did *indeed* bring a lot of new ideas and modes to the musicworld; but these days, they are simply not new anymore - they belong to the past too, became boring, and worse, predictable, formatted, precut. in that other decade, it was a breath of fresh air when boring pop songs were cut up and tuned to frantic beats - nowadays, you know this exactly how the breakcore track by some bullshit artist is gonna play out, when you hit play.
the same goes for society; society is indeed different from how society was in the 90s, 80s, 70s. but - it still sucks. or rather, it sucks - again.
our current culture, our music, our mode of living, is indeed the result of the breakthroughs, the social and sonic revolutions of the 90s; rave utopia came true; as came breakcore resistance. but utopia grew stale; as did resistance. not because these ideas were wrong - they were glorious. but because they are no longer new and exciting; they are old, and conservative, and established. our past revolutionaries are the establishment of today. this can be seen in the all-night techno clubbers; the "party and forget society" myth still holds true for them; but it no longer has the utopian aspect, anarchist, fantastical edge to it, that it had to the first ravers.
the revolutionaries, the ravers, the experimenters, wanted new ideas in that past decade; and they got them. but now, they are not fresh anymore.
culture is always the product between two forces; the agents of change, and the agents of standstill. those who were agents of change in that other decade, are agents of standstill now. and the genres that were agents of change; speedcore, acidhouse; too are agents of standstill now.
now, to get back to our beginning of this texts, this explains why this "crisis" is not visible to many; rather, it is not "visible" to the agents of standstill; as they *want* standstill, they do not see the problem. they appreciate it if nothing changes and culture and music just goes on, and doesn't change, so they approve of this.
the cultural standstill, that is gripping western culture now, is just the "normal situation" for them now.
while for the agents of change, this annoying situation is plainly visible.
what needs to be done, is to rise up once again; to forget the concepts of past music and culture and society. to find something new, create something new, create something great, something wondrous. to produce music that was not done before; to rebel, to revel, to rave, to start a revolution.
"techno" is multiple decades old; and just as tripe as rock was after it lasted several decades. leave this behind; find new ideas, moves, possibilities, methods.
the ideas, the genres, that were so revolutionary in the past, are the moments of reaction now. we need to move on. to create something - awesome. to reach utopia!
in the last decade of the 20th century, people were bored with the generic tripe that polluted the music area - all that cheesy eurodisco, all those ridiculous poser "hardrock" bands, and so on. instead they wanted new, fresh, different, groundbreaking, breathtaking ideas, concepts. and they got them. some created techno, acid, others dark ambient, breakcore, or other experimental and different music. it is impossible for those who did not live that era to realize how hard these sounds hit everyone; how the feeling of revolution and utopia and paradise music spread. because they are used to it now; but those living then, were not.
now, for nostalgics, the scheme is easy: revolution was in the air; we go to techno paradise, experimental music will break through, forgone by the rock relics and the boring pop genres. but, according to them, something went wrong, and the revolution failed and did not come. but nothing could be more from the truth.
we had our techno revolution. we had our breakcore revolution. we had our dark ambient move. and - we won.
and this is exactly the problem. if we were just crushed by the state repression, or this music had never left its shell, the situation would be much better now. where is the problem with this, with this successful change?
because, we wanted new ideas, new movements, new society. and we have them. but, now, as they're established - they are simply not new ideas anymore. "our" new ideas are the old ideas now. what was once revolutionary - techno and its genres - is now reactionary. because life is about change, about movement, about breaking from the past each time anew. it cannot stop, it must not stop. yes, the techno breakthrough, the breakcore moment did *indeed* bring a lot of new ideas and modes to the musicworld; but these days, they are simply not new anymore - they belong to the past too, became boring, and worse, predictable, formatted, precut. in that other decade, it was a breath of fresh air when boring pop songs were cut up and tuned to frantic beats - nowadays, you know this exactly how the breakcore track by some bullshit artist is gonna play out, when you hit play.
the same goes for society; society is indeed different from how society was in the 90s, 80s, 70s. but - it still sucks. or rather, it sucks - again.
our current culture, our music, our mode of living, is indeed the result of the breakthroughs, the social and sonic revolutions of the 90s; rave utopia came true; as came breakcore resistance. but utopia grew stale; as did resistance. not because these ideas were wrong - they were glorious. but because they are no longer new and exciting; they are old, and conservative, and established. our past revolutionaries are the establishment of today. this can be seen in the all-night techno clubbers; the "party and forget society" myth still holds true for them; but it no longer has the utopian aspect, anarchist, fantastical edge to it, that it had to the first ravers.
the revolutionaries, the ravers, the experimenters, wanted new ideas in that past decade; and they got them. but now, they are not fresh anymore.
culture is always the product between two forces; the agents of change, and the agents of standstill. those who were agents of change in that other decade, are agents of standstill now. and the genres that were agents of change; speedcore, acidhouse; too are agents of standstill now.
now, to get back to our beginning of this texts, this explains why this "crisis" is not visible to many; rather, it is not "visible" to the agents of standstill; as they *want* standstill, they do not see the problem. they appreciate it if nothing changes and culture and music just goes on, and doesn't change, so they approve of this.
the cultural standstill, that is gripping western culture now, is just the "normal situation" for them now.
while for the agents of change, this annoying situation is plainly visible.
what needs to be done, is to rise up once again; to forget the concepts of past music and culture and society. to find something new, create something new, create something great, something wondrous. to produce music that was not done before; to rebel, to revel, to rave, to start a revolution.
"techno" is multiple decades old; and just as tripe as rock was after it lasted several decades. leave this behind; find new ideas, moves, possibilities, methods.
the ideas, the genres, that were so revolutionary in the past, are the moments of reaction now. we need to move on. to create something - awesome. to reach utopia!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)