Black September: The Great Breakcore Schism of 2005 (a fraction of a draft)
http://www.c8.com/c8/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=4822
It's not a question of aesthetics. It can't be. We have none.
Aesthetics doesn't interest us beyond being a possible tactic against recuperation. But even this conception seems to us naive: recuperation doesn't operate on some subjective principle of shared taste, of "what'll play well". This refers only to the most obvious manifestations of the phenomenon, of sleazy A&R men and air-brushed artwork. Content doesn't dictate whether you can be made a commodity, as myriad "ugly", counter-cultural musical genres have shown: hippy rock, punk, heavy metal... all found their niche in the record store. Indeed, appearing to fight your own commodification might be seen to be a wise marketing move: we do love our rebels.
Thus, when people decide to split hairs, dividing and subdividing breakcore (which Fringeli calls an admittedly "hybrid strategy" and not a genre) into camps, factions and tendencies, we tend to tune it out, even if there are valid criticisms to be made. Fringeli is completely correct to point out how important an oppositional and anti-authoritarian attitude are to breakcore and his remarks on the cultural re-appropriation of jungle are also spot-on. Furthermore, he accurately encapsulates the regressive tendency within the breakcore world to idolize or deify certain artists, something that we probably inherited from the absurd Cult of the Prolific IDM Producer.
Our only real problem with the article as posted is Fringeli's attack on the aesthetic split in contemporary breakcore. As outlined above, we don't think the form or structure of the music itself is what leads to 'mainstream acceptance'. Aesthetics, at the very least, are concurrent with or, given a stronger reading, subordinate to larger questions of structure, form , distribution and audience. Trying to change a person's conception of 'good' or 'beautiful' strikes us as a waste of time. Trying to convince someone of the practical utility and clandestine fun of breaking into an abandoned warehouse to have a party is easier. At least the latter is concrete.
The larger problem, the predominant concern, ought to be how we can create culture outside capital and how, in turn, we can distribute this D.I.Y. material in order to avoid it becoming a trend, a commodity, fuel for the system we're trying to destroy. Breakcore is just a subset of this larger struggle. It's history and origins certainly seem to bear this out, as Fringeli notes in relation to early breakcore enthusiast's dissatisfaction with both the commercial rave and the free party scene. It originated in response to a general vacuum of D.I.Y. electronic music at a certain place in a certain time. It was a tactical response to a situation. I think this manifests in choices and decisions made around how the music is made and distributed, not in the aesthetics of the "genre" itself: the fact that you're having a party on squatted private land is what makes it oppositional, not the gabber beats or chopped amens. It's a shame and a pity that certain musical genres or styles seem to have a monopoly on these kind of strategies. I don't want to see breakcore stay "pure", but i do want to see some of the ideas that have coalesced around the breakcore scene spread out to other D.I.Y. contexts so as to encourage culture outside capital.
So when Fringeli singles out people like Jason Forrest as being part of some IDMpop takeover of breakcore, i am a little sceptical. The recuperation of breakcore won't be based around aesthetics, but around presentation and distribution of the music. And it does seem like there is a possibility of recuperation happening around these targets. Early breakcore seemed cognizant of this possibility and took pains to avoid it by distributing itself through non-traditional channels. It seems that the people around at that time shared a similar aesthetic. Sure: part of the reason my friends are my friends is that we share certain tastes. But Fringeli, to my mind, is conflating the two: OUR aesthetics + OUR strategies of dispersal = breakcore. In point of fact, the aesthetics are, by and large, an incidental component of a larger question of cultural dispersal and its relation to capitalism. Maybe not incidental in the sense of being irrelevant, but incidental in the sense that, right now, they have next to no bearing on whether breakcore can retain its political and cultural character, compared to larger questions around exactly what means are used to promulgate the material.
Today breakcore is essentially a meaningless buzz word, something it's always bordered on being anyway. What are it's essential features? What do Shitmat, Hecate and Hrvatski have in common? Splitting hairs over aesthetics is pointless, especially since such pursuits often tend to create insular scenes and cliques and this Balkanization serves to further fragment the communities in question. Those familiar with the hardcore scene will know what i'm referring to: put an emo kid, a crusty and skinhead in a room together and observe. Purging pop elements from the music won't create a "pure" scene. Breakcore ought to be as diverse and mutated as possible. It should remain as multi-faceted and million-aspected as it is and it should grow still more heads. What needs to be taken as a given is not an aesthetic or musical posture but an attitude that embraces autonomy and a D.I.Y ethic as tactics against recuperation. Breakcore needs to become, again, a laboratory for tactical cultural intervention, a place where D.I.Y. strategies can be experimented and tampered with. Beyond its role in formenting these kind of situations, breakcore is just another music genre, with the usual scattershot distribution of talent, trends and tastes that comprise any contemporary subculture. Focusing on these superstructural aesthetic details as emblematic of some kind of necessary shift in the base seems ill-founded. Yes, the recuperators are all amongst you, but you can't tell them by the samples they use.
Breakcore emerged as a strategy and it must become one again. They don't care what you play, so long as you play it at home or in the club.
Breakcore is dead, long live 'breakcore'. Or something like it.
It's not a question of aesthetics. It can't be. We have none.
Aesthetics doesn't interest us beyond being a possible tactic against recuperation. But even this conception seems to us naive: recuperation doesn't operate on some subjective principle of shared taste, of "what'll play well". This refers only to the most obvious manifestations of the phenomenon, of sleazy A&R men and air-brushed artwork. Content doesn't dictate whether you can be made a commodity, as myriad "ugly", counter-cultural musical genres have shown: hippy rock, punk, heavy metal... all found their niche in the record store. Indeed, appearing to fight your own commodification might be seen to be a wise marketing move: we do love our rebels.
Thus, when people decide to split hairs, dividing and subdividing breakcore (which Fringeli calls an admittedly "hybrid strategy" and not a genre) into camps, factions and tendencies, we tend to tune it out, even if there are valid criticisms to be made. Fringeli is completely correct to point out how important an oppositional and anti-authoritarian attitude are to breakcore and his remarks on the cultural re-appropriation of jungle are also spot-on. Furthermore, he accurately encapsulates the regressive tendency within the breakcore world to idolize or deify certain artists, something that we probably inherited from the absurd Cult of the Prolific IDM Producer.
Our only real problem with the article as posted is Fringeli's attack on the aesthetic split in contemporary breakcore. As outlined above, we don't think the form or structure of the music itself is what leads to 'mainstream acceptance'. Aesthetics, at the very least, are concurrent with or, given a stronger reading, subordinate to larger questions of structure, form , distribution and audience. Trying to change a person's conception of 'good' or 'beautiful' strikes us as a waste of time. Trying to convince someone of the practical utility and clandestine fun of breaking into an abandoned warehouse to have a party is easier. At least the latter is concrete.
The larger problem, the predominant concern, ought to be how we can create culture outside capital and how, in turn, we can distribute this D.I.Y. material in order to avoid it becoming a trend, a commodity, fuel for the system we're trying to destroy. Breakcore is just a subset of this larger struggle. It's history and origins certainly seem to bear this out, as Fringeli notes in relation to early breakcore enthusiast's dissatisfaction with both the commercial rave and the free party scene. It originated in response to a general vacuum of D.I.Y. electronic music at a certain place in a certain time. It was a tactical response to a situation. I think this manifests in choices and decisions made around how the music is made and distributed, not in the aesthetics of the "genre" itself: the fact that you're having a party on squatted private land is what makes it oppositional, not the gabber beats or chopped amens. It's a shame and a pity that certain musical genres or styles seem to have a monopoly on these kind of strategies. I don't want to see breakcore stay "pure", but i do want to see some of the ideas that have coalesced around the breakcore scene spread out to other D.I.Y. contexts so as to encourage culture outside capital.
So when Fringeli singles out people like Jason Forrest as being part of some IDMpop takeover of breakcore, i am a little sceptical. The recuperation of breakcore won't be based around aesthetics, but around presentation and distribution of the music. And it does seem like there is a possibility of recuperation happening around these targets. Early breakcore seemed cognizant of this possibility and took pains to avoid it by distributing itself through non-traditional channels. It seems that the people around at that time shared a similar aesthetic. Sure: part of the reason my friends are my friends is that we share certain tastes. But Fringeli, to my mind, is conflating the two: OUR aesthetics + OUR strategies of dispersal = breakcore. In point of fact, the aesthetics are, by and large, an incidental component of a larger question of cultural dispersal and its relation to capitalism. Maybe not incidental in the sense of being irrelevant, but incidental in the sense that, right now, they have next to no bearing on whether breakcore can retain its political and cultural character, compared to larger questions around exactly what means are used to promulgate the material.
Today breakcore is essentially a meaningless buzz word, something it's always bordered on being anyway. What are it's essential features? What do Shitmat, Hecate and Hrvatski have in common? Splitting hairs over aesthetics is pointless, especially since such pursuits often tend to create insular scenes and cliques and this Balkanization serves to further fragment the communities in question. Those familiar with the hardcore scene will know what i'm referring to: put an emo kid, a crusty and skinhead in a room together and observe. Purging pop elements from the music won't create a "pure" scene. Breakcore ought to be as diverse and mutated as possible. It should remain as multi-faceted and million-aspected as it is and it should grow still more heads. What needs to be taken as a given is not an aesthetic or musical posture but an attitude that embraces autonomy and a D.I.Y ethic as tactics against recuperation. Breakcore needs to become, again, a laboratory for tactical cultural intervention, a place where D.I.Y. strategies can be experimented and tampered with. Beyond its role in formenting these kind of situations, breakcore is just another music genre, with the usual scattershot distribution of talent, trends and tastes that comprise any contemporary subculture. Focusing on these superstructural aesthetic details as emblematic of some kind of necessary shift in the base seems ill-founded. Yes, the recuperators are all amongst you, but you can't tell them by the samples they use.
Breakcore emerged as a strategy and it must become one again. They don't care what you play, so long as you play it at home or in the club.
Breakcore is dead, long live 'breakcore'. Or something like it.