rave era as recapitulation of the sixties
- Thread starter Woebot
- Start date
Leo
Well-known member
discussing the "c" word is valid in many cases, but not when the preceding conversation is about the vibe of a house track or something. when that happens here, and it does periodically, I roll my eyes and check out. it's boring pseudo-intellectualism that's not relevant to the discussion at hand.
luka
Well-known member
Absolutely. I'm willing to admit there might be some valid contexts for using that word, I've used it myself on various threads, but as a general guideline I think it's useful to say it's banned. If only as a way to talk about the same stuff with more granularity, tighter focus, higher resolution etc.
WashYourHands
Cat Malogen
Proper weird, bordering on inane, not even A-level standard but he’s a name & the BBC gave him a platform. He joined the dots, but the avoidance of discussing the clearly altered states of people included in the footage was oddly spurious. He admitted he was quite late to the party & while that’s not a disclaimer for missing a big part of the picture, it rang hollow. Trawling through YouTube for clips worth including in a state of nostalgic satori isn’t critical enough imho for such a huge subject. However & hypocritically, there’s one extended clip of a queue line waiting outside a venue (Shelley’s?) that he let play for about a minute that caused a minor rush. It ended there.
“Festival Britannia” did a marginally better job, but even they left it until the last 10mins to included the microbial contribution from Rick/Digs aka Grace Sands from DiY. Without that interview, it was the same old same old footage, rehashed, reinforced & repeated. Wish Rick had walked away tbh.
I saw the deller thing, thought it was ok, there were bits where it was a bit awkward, with the kids, felt a bit inauthentic.
I thought the clip he showed of old people outside court in Salisbury, who were on the side of the beanfield hippies was good.
I think he's had a go at something, tried to do some social history, fallen short probably. It felt like he was trying an Adam Curtis type thing? I think he wants to take his place. But he's not got enough insights. I used to like his art (acid brass, rave map) when I was younger, but it's now like a lot of yba stuff, very shoddy looking.
But this sort of thing (not just rave, but miners strike etc) should be taught in schools, it's kinda criminal that it's not, but I suppose it's because it's still so emotive.
I thought the clip he showed of old people outside court in Salisbury, who were on the side of the beanfield hippies was good.
I think he's had a go at something, tried to do some social history, fallen short probably. It felt like he was trying an Adam Curtis type thing? I think he wants to take his place. But he's not got enough insights. I used to like his art (acid brass, rave map) when I was younger, but it's now like a lot of yba stuff, very shoddy looking.
But this sort of thing (not just rave, but miners strike etc) should be taught in schools, it's kinda criminal that it's not, but I suppose it's because it's still so emotive.
Regarding what has been said of the c word, I was reading this last night:
"...time is not an object. So every objectification of time is going to be subverted, it’s going to have missed its actual target and therefore in some way fail. It will be metaphysically flawed. That’s what happens with the critique of capitalism. It is always tempted to engage in premature objectification and say this is what capitalism is, we can tell, we can define it as an object and then by doing it we can set limits to it. That objectifica-
tion process always has the same metaphysical congenital defect. You
can argue with it, which obviously I do, but that’s less interesting than the fact that as time passes it will be exposed for its inadequacies. The left that bases itself on this model of objectification of capitalism will
be defeated and outwitted and mocked by the actual historical process.
That’s obviously what the history of the left is, the successive attempts
to upgrade the objectification of capital and then a bit later revaluate it
because capitalism over-spilt in all directions and developed in direc-
tions the left didn’t foresee. There is symmetry there, because I think
it’s a mistake on the right, too, to have a model of capitalism. You should
see that as a joke. Capitalism is a transcendental process."
"...time is not an object. So every objectification of time is going to be subverted, it’s going to have missed its actual target and therefore in some way fail. It will be metaphysically flawed. That’s what happens with the critique of capitalism. It is always tempted to engage in premature objectification and say this is what capitalism is, we can tell, we can define it as an object and then by doing it we can set limits to it. That objectifica-
tion process always has the same metaphysical congenital defect. You
can argue with it, which obviously I do, but that’s less interesting than the fact that as time passes it will be exposed for its inadequacies. The left that bases itself on this model of objectification of capitalism will
be defeated and outwitted and mocked by the actual historical process.
That’s obviously what the history of the left is, the successive attempts
to upgrade the objectification of capital and then a bit later revaluate it
because capitalism over-spilt in all directions and developed in direc-
tions the left didn’t foresee. There is symmetry there, because I think
it’s a mistake on the right, too, to have a model of capitalism. You should
see that as a joke. Capitalism is a transcendental process."
Woebot
Well-known member
Woebot
Well-known member
i like jeremy deller i do. and there's nice footage in there.
but to reduce rave to a specific political perspective? to try and cram it into a tiny iron box like that? SURELY anyone can see it was a lot more complicated. thank god it was a WHOLE LOT DEEPER than that...
i don't even want to go into it - like luke says it's a turn off - but the knots deller ties himsely up in when he talks about paul staines/guido fawkes crystallise it.
and to return to the thread's point. the sixties wasn't the SDS and the new left. and the sixties was a whole lot more avowedly political than the rave era ever was.
WashYourHands
Cat Malogen
Ta & bought
cool but can we also ban well-adjusted personality and its derivatives?
Christ this is bad. do people really believe this shit?
It's like the ultimate centrist managerial blairite position. so in that sense, precisely the culture warring that Luke and Matthew castigate.
I don't have to use the word capitalism but if i said drugs are really not that deep the opinion wouldn't cary the same weight on here. and this from someone who used to use drugs frequently. they are just quotidian, nothing special, not ontologically privileged above anything else. there's no breakthrough, no silver bullet, no great awakening.
if the counter-culture invented wellness and rave was a semi-recapitulation of that, then I'd rather remain unwell. it's so cheesy hearing young kids constantly talk about healing, as if we are all mental defectives. Chuck it in the bin frankly. what I'm trying to get at is how counter-culture was also a pretext for people to enact their authoritarian fantasies, not whether Luke needs to question his actions or whether he will come into ownership of a villa.
I know a communist who likes Mark Fishers thought but for exactly the opposite reasons as Luke, yet both are armchair dwellers to a T. Maybe the interesting aesthetic in k-punks thought was his defference to academic philosophy and his teenybopper emasculation in counterpoint to the cock rocker? Otherwise I question his veracity of even understanding capitalism as a historical process. It seemed like he was in a debate with philosophers about other philosophers. I would he rather sat down with marx for 10 years and thoroughly mastered it. Dilettantism is great for people like me, but I have no grandeur to be a public figure. I don't have to maintain an invariable thread of continuity.
I know a communist who likes Mark Fishers thought but for exactly the opposite reasons as Luke, yet both are armchair dwellers to a T. Maybe the interesting aesthetic in k-punks thought was his defference to academic philosophy and his teenybopper emasculation in counterpoint to the cock rocker? Otherwise I question his veracity of even understanding capitalism as a historical process. It seemed like he was in a debate with philosophers about other philosophers. I would he rather sat down with marx for 10 years and thoroughly mastered it. Dilettantism is great for people like me, but I have no grandeur to be a public figure. I don't have to maintain an invariable thread of continuity.
Last edited:
luka
Well-known member
I don't think anyone here would claim to have a well-adjusted personality!
luka
Well-known member
There are innumerable breakthroughs and awakenings
shiels
_
I’m well adjusted. So adjusted.
no. none at all. it's just a larf or terror mate. those are the two central emotions of drugs.
it's the poor mans religion, and ever the more sad for that.