Champagne in the DJ booth

Very few things can rival ending up a world class tech house session partying in the booth with the very DJs that previously brought so much joy to you in the dancefloor. If, on top of that, they are friends and great guys -despite being among the most famous and sought-after electronic music producers and performers in the business-, it all becomes a nearly mystical experience.

This mix was somehow inspired by an amazing performance two days ago by Philipp J. and Patrick D.

Tracklist:

01 Lee Jones · Roadwork
02 Andre Rozzo · Test 1212
03 Andre Rozzo · See the way (Phunk Diggaz moody mix)
04 Aziz · Quiet groove
05 Dirty boots · Clutch
06 M.A.N.D.Y. · Put put put (Tobi Neumann mix)
07 Dose3 · Minds (Tobi Neumann mix)
08 Toni Rico & Bobkomyns · Pizzicato move
09 M.A.N.D.Y. · O Superman (Felix Da Housecat mix)
10 Andre Rozzo · Storm warning (Distant Thunder mix)
11 Jaccy · Deep effect
12 Peter Mcgill · Broken ego

Download
[71:40, 82,1 Mb]

Photo: ‘Spindle’, 2006 © El Ray

In deep love with tech house

Not so long ago, electro -which replaced tech house as the fav type of dance music for the clubbing culture pundits-  seemed to be the kind of stuff that would end up taking over programing at clubs, so any venue wanting to be hip would include electro DJs in its roster. Currently, however, clubs display a healthy variety of styles, so the prospect of an electro-monopoly has not become a reality. Nevertheless, there are many that still render tech house as a dead and buried genre. If so, then I suffer from serious necrophilia…

Tracklist:

01 Dirt crew · Maneouvres (Motorcitysoul mix)
02 Oz-E · So what (Aziz artificial dub)
03 Rejected · Cliche (Polder mix)
04 Motorcitysoul · Change you (Shur-I-Kan mix)
05 Black Magma · Perfect control
06 Chris Harry · I will remember (Agent Automatic mix)
07 D Opposite D · The one
08 Alex Font · Turbulence
09 Paul Legend · In the mood
10 Alex Font · Zoo

Download
[62:28, 71,6 Mb]

Photo: Trickski (live), Madrid, 2007 © Loudsoul

Procrustean rulers

In my last post in this section (“Let me be multidimensional”), I addressed the issue of the alleged unidimensionalism that characterizes human beings, according to certain proponents of multiculturalist worldviews. Now I would like to take on the governmental attempts to diminish social pluralism. In principle, the fragmentation of societies in a myriad of unidimensional groups I refered to in my previous post seems to be the opposite of the efforts to end up with diversity, but we shall see how they share the same underlaying mechanism.

By and large, political and social leaders do not like pluralism for, on the one hand, it erodes the foundations of their power; that is, their ability to present themselves as embodying or guaranteeing certain core values of the group or nation they lead. Achieving this goal is difficult if the group is very diverse -as the values and traits of its members are likely to be as diverse as them-, and less so if it is more homogeneous. On the other hand, and this is perhaps more important, political leaders whose aim consist mainly in helping guarantee the highest possible freedom to their fellow citizens in every possible realm are the exception and not the norm. Most governments exercise power with a precise agenda inspired by a particular notion of what is morally good or desirable. Bringing about this political agenda -encouraging or even imposing a specific notion of the good- requires a certain degree of moral conformity, something that, in turn, leads to an increased social uniformity. This phenomenon is all too apparent in dictatorial regimes, and much more so in those labelled as “leftist” or revolutionary, and in those based on some kind of religious fundamentalism. The Ukrainian author Adam Zagajewski captures magnificently this idea when describing the efforts of the former Eastern Europe socialist dictatorships to wipe off social heterogeneity:

«The aim of this coup was the complete and ultimate making over of the human collective, also made up of types and forms constantly modified but appearing anew with each generation, as in Tarot cards: we will always find a Cheater, Globetrotter, Gafdy, Drunkard, Proprietor, Tenant, Seducer, Seduced, Pawnbroker, Priest, Artist, etc. Thus the social upheaval planned by the communists assumed that there was something evil and sinful in this variety of types that has existed since time immemorial and the authorities strove relentlessly to produce only three types of man: Functionary, Worker, Policeman». [1]

However, not only dictatorships abhor moral and social diversity. Those of us living in democratic regimes are constantly bullied into behaving in virtuous ways not chosen by us but by our rulers. Democratic governments almost never resist the temptation to remain neutral among different conceptions of the good -thought this should be a central tenet of liberal regimes- and, as a result of this “Fatal Conceit” (in the words of Friedrich Hayek), of this belief that goverments can and should change the world with their actions, we endure ceaseless campaigns prompting us to eat certain food, wear certain clothes, avoid certain lifestyles, and so on. This would be not more than another example of the annoying public intromission in our private lives if it was not by the fact that most of them are mandatory and carry serious sanctions for the law-breachers, distort markets in very important ways and nearly always try to control choices whose consecuences affect no other than the individual making them. The list of examples is never-ending, from governmental attacks on fast food chains to the absolute prohibition to produce, distribute and consume recreative drugs or even take our own life; from which languages we should speak or avoid and what exact words should we employ to refer to other people or describe a variety of social conditions (think of the epidemic of political correctness), to who are we allowed to buy certain services from in basic realms as health, education and labour, and in which terms.

Governments will always try to do away with diversity and pluralism and impose their own moral agendas, and the huge differences existing in this sense between dictatorships and democracies should not conceal the fact that those are of degree and not of substance. [2]

Where is the link here with my previous comments on the purported unidimensionalism that, according to most communitarian theories, defines our social beings and renders our belonging to identity-based groups an ineluctable reality? Both -though not all- governments and identity groups seek to impose homogeneity to a certain degree; both -though not all- usually rely on the belief that there are essential traits in us that makes us natural members or a group or a nation and disciplinedly share a common set of values in its entirety.

Ultimately, these attempts to wipe off the personal qualities that diferentiate us from others and -contrary to what collectivist thinkers seem to believe- allow us to relate to others as free, responsible individuals and bring society into existence-, amount to no more than a strategy to acquire, exercise and maintain power on the part of those social and political elites, rendering us as means and not as ends in ourselves, worthy of respect, privacy and free rein. And it is precisely this procrustean endeavour to make everyone fit in the same bed, at the price of amputating our legs, streching out our arms, or getting rid of our brains altogether, what Stefan Zweig, praising the works of the French philosopher Michel de Montaigne, has masterfully labelled as an error and a crime:

«Il n´est qu´un erreur et qu´un crime: vouloir enfermer la diversité du monde dans des doctrines et des systèmes. C´est une erreur que de détourner d´autres hommes de leur libre jugement, de leur volonté prope, et de leur imposer quelque chose qui n´est pas en eux. Seuls agissent ainsi ceux qui respectent pas la liberté, et Montaigne n´a rien tant haï que la “frénésie”, le furieux délire des dictateurs de l´esprit, qui veulent avec arrogance et vanité imposer au monde leurs “nouveautés” comme la seule et indiscutable vérité, et pour qui le sang de centaines de milliers d´hommes n´est rien pourvu que leur cause triomphe». [3]

Notes:

[1] Adam Zagajewski, 1995, Two cities. On exile, history, and the imagination, New York, Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1995, pp. 37-38, trad. Lillian Vallee, originally published in Polish under the title Dwa Miasta in 1991.

[2] For those of you who find it difficult to read between the lines, my argument does not criticize governmental intervention per se, but only in relation to wholly private affairs and in particular realms of social life.

[3] Stefan Zweig, Montaigne, quoted in the introduction to the 2002 edition of Les essais, by Michel de Montaigne, Paris, Arléa.

Photo: George Grosz, The City, 1916/17, Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection, Madrid @ abcgallery