(ib)BuGGin Volume 004 (December 19, 2008)

http://www.prezike.com/Podcasts/Ize_Bernard_-_ib_BuGGin_Vol_004_2008_12_15.mp3

Claro Intelecto - 'Gone to the Dogs' [Modern Love]
Matthias Meyer & Patlac - 'Skipper' [Liebe Detail]
Anton Pieete - 'Last Night' [Intacto]
SIS - 'Nesrib' [Cécille]
Andre Crom & Luca Doobie - 'Orange Drive' [Heimatmelodie]
Luciano & Mirko Loco - 'Mousa Big Band' [Desolat]
Big Bully & Rufas - 'Nightflight' [Tic Tac Toe]
Boza - 'My Big Thing (Mastiksoul Remix)' [Rawthentic]
Matt Star - 'Kuhle Fliege (Jonas Kopp Androgeno Remix)' [International Freakshow]
Loco Dice - 'Phat Dope Shit (Saeed's Shit Bass Mix)' [Four:Twenty]
Dapayk Solo - 'Devil's House' [Mo's Ferry]
Motor City Drum Ensemble - 'Raw Cuts 3' [Faces]
Ilario Alicante - 'Living Near Africa' [Cécille]
Klovn - 'I Want You (District One Remix)' [Great Stuff]
Pablo Rez - 'Origami' [Frankie]
D'Julz - 'Fleurette (Tobias Remix)' [Circus Company]
Efdemin - 'The Pulse' [Curle]
Butane - 'Collapse' [alphahouse]

This is an edited version of my blog comment to a post from the Resident Advisor Feed sharing a blog post by electro and progressive house producer Deadmau5, in response to comments made to a journalist where he defined the art of DJ mixing as "play/stop/pitch."

For those that have followed my recent writings, this post is somewhat of a follow up to my previous piece about the evolvement of djing that referred to discussion on legendary house and techno dj/producer Danny Tenaglia's forum responding to a video of Richie Hawtin's Traktor setup:

Deadmau5's comments strikes me as a good example of how the immense changes we've seen in DJing and producing, particularly with regards to technological advances and access to them, can be problematic.

That being said, I am still a supporter of the general movement of change, but feel that when one does not have roots, or education in the traditions of a culture that this may lead to discounting something such as the art of mixing, as merely playing songs.

Interestingly, this same discussion is taking place about changes in other music, like hip-hop, particularly as younger fans/artists seek an identity that differentiates them from the previous generation of fans/artists. I recently heard Afrika Bambaataa state this as well few other legendary hip-hop DJ's like Tony Tone argue this point, who i was also able to interact with at the Cornell University Library Hip-Hop Conference. This reaction from younger people is actually quite natural, psychologically, but i think it can be exacerbated, when the gap between "generations" widens at a faster pace.

I can get why Deadmau5 might might feel defensive reaching the status he has so quickly, not seeded in the culture of DJing, and faces constant scrutiny from veteran electronic music supporters, journalists, and artists. I suspect this could be much of what's behind his seemingly reactive dismissal of DJing.

The reality is that production is pretty much the main route towards success as a "DJ," where as years ago DJ's could also build fairly substantial reputations on their mixing skills, and track selection, with little production work, or none at all.

The problem for someone like him is that he is still dependent upon actual DJ's playing his tracks. Yet, you wonder if the access to music through mp3s, while seemingly great for artists' exposure to new fans, may cause other problems for DJ's. Combine that with a producer's immense popularity, and many fans/club goers seeing DJ's as their personal mp3 players (as any DJ can attest to), and we can see how people might just demand his tracks to be played, now that they can check for new songs with such ease on beatport or by just looking at what the top 10 tracks are.

Way back when, and still today in more underground scenes, DJ's were the focus; introducing fans to new sounds, styles, and artists. As a former, straight up hip-hop DJ, this is just what I wanted to escape, because if you play even a single hip-hop track that folks might be familiar with in certain venues it seems to trigger some kind of, "I can now dictate to the dj what to play" in folks' brains.

I find it interesting that the exact same focus on the DJ used to be the case in hip-hop, but as the genre became more popular the focus shifted to the M.C.. Eventually this led, popularly, to the demise of much of the art of djing at parties/clubs, where it became more about playing songs that are familiar or popular with fans. More of the tradition of dj's being the introduces of music, which also was the case with radio djs, seems to still survive in electronic music, and through "Live PA" sets it can thrive in newer forms.

My recent piece about changes in DJing, regarding that recent video of Richie Hawtin's Traktor setup seems to relate to this trend. I see Deadmau5 and Hawtin as the two different tracks of where the changes in access and technology are headed. Hawtin's approach is something i am far more in support of, because it seems more evolved, and he's already schooled in the traditions of DJing. Deadmau5 is by no means talentless, but might he be a more versed producer if he dove into DJing a bit more? I'd love to see he and younger fans/artists be more respectful of the roots of where artists get to make a living off of what he does, and fans get to enjoy their music. Yet, I also believe it is imperative that veteran fans and artists work on being a bit less nasty towards the changes that are happening, to work on being more understanding of where it is coming from.

I think it's definitely worth considering Deadmau5's response, and those who support his statements, because it is likely going to be very much part of the ongoing debate on this topic.

Lemos & Tonny Lasar - 'Cali In Love feat Cali (Mri Rework)' [Resopal Red]

Bearweasel - ' 4 Weeks in Poverty' [8Bit]

DFD - 'La Poppe (Original Mix)' [Electric Minds]

Marcel Dettmann - 'Plain' [Beatstreet]

Erik Wikstrom - 'Marathon (Feed remix)' [Feed]

Kaufmann & Ferdiand feat.Evansloped - 'Maden Magda (Alex Kork Remix)' [Kaufe Musik]

Minicoolboyz - 'This is the End (Original Mix)' [Strike Recordings]

Shlomi Aber - 'State Of No One (Shlomi Aber Deep Dub)' [Renaissance]

Dyed Soundrorom - 'Tapioka (Original Mix)' [Tsuba]

Maus & Stolle - 'Adore (Meat & Reboot Remix)' [Klang Elektronik]

Sandrien - 'You Might Be Moving' [Unreleased]

Ilija Rudman - 'After Midnight (Greg Wilson Remix)' [Love is War]

Minimono - 'Ratman (Hugo Remix)' [Tuning Spork]

Format:B - 'Something Suitable feat. Jake the Rapper' [Highgrade Records]

Carlos Peren - 'ET (Betty Botox Edit)' [Endless Flight]

Mammoth Studios - 'The Electric Acid Test' [Mammoth Studios]

Force of Nature - 'I-Ight' [Mule Musiq]

Marco Resmann - 'Sao Paulo Lights (Anthony Collins Favela Remix)' [Upon You Records]

I was severely disappointed watching former Governor of New York, Mario Cuomo, completely strike out in his attempt to summarize the rationale for term limits while speaking at the first New York City Council public hearing on whether term limits should be changed.

Not once did he mention protecting the right of the minority to have an fair opportunity to see someone else elected against a popular incumbent heading into a third term. Studies show that challengers face tremendous obstacles in probability if they hope to defeat an incumbent, as Councilman Charles Barron outlined.

Popularity is not the only measure of success for a politician. This is not even taking into consideration the tremendously deep pockets that Mayor Bloomberg, or any other future incumbent could possess, which does not guarantee victory, but surely provides them with an advantage over any candidate without access to such capital.

Mr. Barron may have used an ad hominem attack on Councilman Felder with his comments about the man's humor skills, yet his critiques of Mr. Cuomo and Mr. Felder in other areas, while populist, represent the view of many frustrated New Yorkers, including this author. I am flabbergasted by what is transpiring, finding it a tremendous shame to hear such dismissal of, or lack of understanding of key factors for maintaining term limits.

Democracy should not merely be about conventionalism as hegemony. Have we not learned anything from the dangers of such practice in leading to the invasion of Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, and the passing of the Patriot Act? All were apparently allowed to exist because of an incumbent's popularity, yet were in direct conflict with the U.S. Constitution, internationally accepted human rights standards, and long held American views on foreign-policy that has allowed the U.S. to be held with some esteem. So, as a result of majority rule we undermined our own democracy.

Protecting the rights of the minority is also vital to a healthy democracy because for those who do not support an incumbent, some semblance of hope for seeing change allows for buy in to our political system. One can see how extending or eliminating term limits could lead to increased disinterest in the political process from marginalized groups, particularly people of color, and those in low-income brackets who are have struggled for a voice in Bloomberg's New York .. issues.

If you do not support the incumbent, there has always been some small comfort in knowing that 8 years is the maximum amount of time they will remain in office.

Cuomo also said he would never be against term limits because he wants the voters to decide?

While I could go on why this is flawed, even by his own standard if citizens vote against changing term limits (which they already have, twice) then how does that fall in line with his view that the power of voting is the only valuable instrument of measurement?

I fear that increasing the silence of dissent, as I see extending term limits or eliminating them will likely lead to, is extraordinarily dangerous for maintaining a democracy that allows for all its citizens to participate in its process and have a say in the direction it takes.

Is the tyranny of the majority now the standard for American democracy?

I certainly hope not.

The equal protection clause in the 14th amendment essentially states that laws must treat all citizens equally, or in other words cannot be created to target specific individuals.

How is Bloomberg's attempt to thwart such laws not an example of opportunism, when he would never be able to even consider such a proposal if he was not so popular? I believe, at least some supporters of Giuliani for a 3rd tem suggested the same thing following 9/11, yet fortunately it did not occur.

Evidence suggests that since Nixon (and even more so since George W. Bush) America has increasingly awarded power to the executive branch of government at the expense of the Constitution.

Bloomberg's obvious awareness that he can undermine City Council's will to protect the Constitution through populism, since the Democratic leaders (Thompson and Quinn) have their own interests in mind (running for Mayor down the road/remaining in office) concerns me deeply as a proponent of democratic ideals.

Regardless of what one thinks of Bloomberg's tenure, we do not need anymore movement towards monarchy nor oligarchy. Popular incumbents have left office before and we have survived just fine.

The paternalism of Bloomberg and Giuliani has been welcomed by many, but not all. If we have a democracy those residents should always be able to take solace knowing that the person they want removed will eventually leave office after two terms. How do NYC citizens feel about Bush using his popularity to push for the Patriot Act to be passed and invade Iraq as a result of fears that rose following 9/11?

Fear should not be the primary motivation for our interests, and I find it highly ironic that Bloomberg was likely only able to become Mayor in 2001 because of fear driven associations of he with Giuliani.

I also urge residents of New York to pay attention to other concerning signs in the city that only pro-corporate/financial institution Mayors like Giuliani and Bloomberg could have facilitated, at the expense of many lower-income residents needs and interests, particularly when it comes to gentrification.

Let me add to those who believe that term limits are "undemocratic"...

Is not there such thing as the tyranny of the majority?

Part of democracy, the ideal at least, is to believe that even the minority should have say in some way or form. Conventionalism and populism sound democratic, but they can certainly lead the the silencing of dissent. As I stated earlier, those who do not like or support Bloomberg should be able to know that two terms was all one has to endure. Part of the rationale for term limits, in my view, is also to bring fresh blood who (hopefully) possess new ideas and views to the public, and perhaps are more connected to such views that may not be able to thrive in a current paradigm.

In fact, this is what some say is the purpose of party conventions, in that they are a way for citizens to learn about potential candidates of the future. Bloomberg takes a great deal of credit for pushing "unpopular" policies that he felt would work. Some have garnered results that have led to his popularity, while others have been polarizing. This is especially the case for those with less voice in the pro-corporate/financial institution dominated city he has pushed for. There may be another candidate who possesses acumen with regards to addressing these issues, which Bloomberg has thus far appeared to face challenges in completely understanding (i.e. the consequences of increasing costs-of-living on many communities and residents, as well as on the ability to be a true center for developing artists), which may do the city some good that sociologists (Richard Florida) have found to be key to economic development and increased happiness in in a society/city.

So, apparently some Republican pundits have been contending that Sarah Palin's negotiation of fishing rights and ocean control off the coast of Alaska, as well as working with Canada about borders and trade constitutes significant foreign policy "experience."

Does this not seem like we are sinking to to new depths? Karl Rove was on FoxNews because Alaska is our closest state to Russia she also has foreign policy "experience", and Fox & Friends co-host Steve Doocy. I mean, really, this is an actual argument? Being kind, this seems to be at most more about diplomatic relations than foreign policy, because it's not exactly like these states are creating policies that can exist far outside of the laws of the U.S. Constitution. So no secret negotiations of the utmost importance probably took place over fishing rights.

And if you want go that route, Obama is probably far more qualified as an international diplomat than Palin and McCain, as he visited and met with leaders in multiple countries around the world in his political career, prior this summer, and is generally well liked and trusted more than most of our other political leaders abroad, which will probably have far more impact on international relations and foreign policy than Palin's fishing rights and Canadian border "negotiating experience."

This entire point about Obama's "experience" seems to be a non-sequitur. You can go look up hus "accomplishments" quite easily. The info is available.

However, if you've ever seen 'The Untouchables' you may recall when Sean Connery and Kevin Costner's characters are searching for a cop to assist in their taking on Al Capone:

"If you're afraid of getting a rotten apple, don't get it from the barrel, get it off the tree."

Experience can be a double edged sword. Overemphasis on experience can be a slippery slope because how do we define it? There is evidence that in the workplace that experience does not necessarily correlate to success. In fact, literature on the topic of which I just did a casual search on, seems to suggest that management skill and often limited experience as an executive (or CEO) can be a strength, which I will discuss further in a bit. The attempt to debate "experience" for President in a vacuum of "legislative" versus "executive" seems highly flawed, and a classic symptom of how the media and political spin doctors manipulate discussions into either/or, when there are other variables that go unaccounted for.

Regardless, Obama has some "experience," even in the realm of politics. The term "experience" is something we can debate all day. This argument about "experience" confuses me when there appears to be no clear standard for electing presidents that most voters adhere to, and I'm unsure if anyone can even measure what level of "experience," which I can only guess most mean to be executive experience, is necessary to be "qualified" as President. Should U.S. Senators no longer run for President then since we assume that Governors with "executive experience" are the "most qualified?"

To suggest his oratory skills are all that we know about him, as I have read and heard, is an example of the serious spin that we can easily pray victim to when it gets repeated enough times. Let's also point to the fact that Bush also had "executive experience" as Governor of Texas, and ask folks how they feel about his presidency (at least now, which should matter for something, even historically).

Obama's life experience, combined with his success politically under very challenging circumstances in his party (against the Clintons, given his racial identity, etc.) thus far seems to be more sufficient than the "experience" argument for Palin. Being president often involves political attacks and a need for endurance. In fact, the question about age being a significant factor is also overstated in that folks mistakenly assume with age comes wisdom. If you are not exposed to many different "experiences" in life, and you are an older person, I would suspect one to be less wise in their decision making than one who is younger but has had more exposure to different people, places, jobs, etc.

Obama's Jackie Robinson-like rise to this position, character, intelligence, poise, and experience as a leader throughout his life seems to be worth valuing quite highly, and is often an example of the way people with less "experience" may feel ambitious enough to go after high level positions, land them, and succeed. In fact, charisma is a HIGHLY valued commodity as President because the ability to communicate to others, whether in a speech, with groups, or individuals is a necessary part of the job. For example, LBJ was able to get significant legislation passed on the Civil Rights Act, etc. because of this ability to communicate. Current NY Governor, Patterson, is pretty well liked amongst politicians in NY, even amongst Republicans because he is a savvy communicator.

Now, those two examples are folks who have been in their respective political arenas for longer, but Obama appears to be very well liked by practically everyone in the Democratic party, as well as popularly across parties, which was a tool George W. Bush and Bill Clinton utilized effectively for persuasion when dealing with the opposition, and in accomplishing their goals. His ability as a Democrat, and a person of African descent to appeal to the range of views in the party (and non-registered progressives who generally support Dems views) says quite a bit to me, as Hillary Clinton was seemingly unable to do so.

Speeches should not be underestimated in importance as a leader, nor should charisma. Reagan-ites (of whom I have never identified with for personal reasons) seem to have strongly connected with these aspects of his persona. What was his "experience" other than being an actor that gained increased celebrity status after switching parties and saying things like a goal was "to send the welfare bums back to work" to win the Governorship of California? Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sonny Bono were also very or completely inexperienced when they ran for office, as was Jesse Ventura.

Arguably, Obama's smaller resume has privileged him to have not been involved in some of the political compromises Democrats made that have frustrated much of their base, and weakened their support amongst independents angry at Bush and the Republicans, which cost them the 2004 election.

In the U.S. we allow for any citizen to run for president. Why bother running 3rd party candidates without experience then if they aren't "experienced" either?

The point is, all this discussion about experience is driven by propaganda and quite obviously a way of changing the debate that Republicans will very much struggle to win otherwise. The interesting bit is the general reliance on a generally negative platform that hurt Hillary, because Obama has shown to be so effective at handling such attacks.