Illustration 1: Graffiti that appeared in summer during the uprisings after the death of George Floyd and was redistributed later as meme online.
( photo by Esmat Elhalaby (@thaqafatalhind) )

Written explanation of the bachelor thesis

1. Introduction

„The future is dark,

which is best thing the future can be, I think.“

Virginia Woolf[1]

„A call to arm

Ain’t gonna fight no more
Done fought the kitchen clock
And the master’s clock
And the work clock
And the god clock
And the tax clock
And the witch clock
And I ain’t gonna fight no more
Already fought for the rich clock
The poor clock
The city clock
The country clock
And I ain’t gonna fight no more
Ain’t gonna fight no more
Already fought the doomsday clock
The clock of hell
The clock of democracy
And I ain’t gonna fight no more
Me after me
Ticking right after me
In the swoop over me before
And the world will be one with God
Before anybody else
Ain’t gonna fight no more
Ain’t gonna fight no more“[2]

The title „non-standard-sequencing“ is a reference to french philosopher Francois Laruelle‘s work around the concept of so called non-standard-philosophy.

               „Ultimately, I see non-philosophers in several different ways. I see them, inevitably, as subjects                of the university, as is required by worldly life, but above all as related to three fundamental                human types. They are related to the analyst and the political militant, obviously, since non-               philosophy is close to psychoanalysis and Marxism – it transforms the subject by transforming                instances of philosophy. But they are also related to what I would call the ‘spiritual type – which                it is imperative not to confuse with ‘spiritualist. The spiritual are not spiritualists. They are the                great destroyers of the forces of philosophy and the state, which band together in the name of                order and conformity. The spiritual haunt the margins of philosophy, gnosticism, mysticism, and                even of institutional religion and politics. The spiritual are not just abstract, quietist mystics; they       are for the world. This is why a quiet discipline is not sufficient, because man is implicated in the          world as the presupposed that determines it. Thus, non-philosophy is also related to gnosticism                and science-fiction; it answers their fundamental question – which is not at all philosophys                primary concern –: “Should humanity be saved? And how?” […] When all is said and done, is                non-philosophy anything other than the chance for an effective utopia?“[3]

Non-standard-philsophy or non-philosophy is not so much a new or different philosophy, but rather a shift in approach to philosophy. It tackles a wide range of different fields & topics, as the prefix ‚non-‘ again invites us to reexamine things anew[4]. With „non-standard-sequencing“ I hope to inspire to rethink concepts of (space-)time, timing, temporality, history (or rather histories), rhythm & sequencing. Rather than proposing another superior new theory – ‚the next big thing‘ –, the following is intended to give voice to a variety of influences and positions, remixed and cut-up with each other, in polyphony.

Therefor in this thesis I‘ll draw from a wide range of different materials between so called fictional or non-fictional materials, as well as different fields of sciences, as well as found materials from the depths of the world wide web, and try to put them on the same level in terms of their importance and weighting. Quotes which are completely in italics are usually from fictional material; books, mangas, lyrics of songs, or the like. Lyrics on top are right aligned.

The first part „2. [Exposition] About Time“ is a basic theoretical introduction into a philosophical framework. It is at once providing insight into socio-philosophical conceptions of time and the claim that it‘s finally time to readdress rhythm & tempo in musical composition practice. Following and developing the postmodern critique of the metanarrative, the conception of history as polychronic is applied to the individual voices in compositional practice in order to do justice to the multiplicity and autonomy of voices. While Western/European music history can be characterized by the development from monophonic to polyphonic to harmonic conception of tonality to conceptual composition, i.e. a turn towards centralization, I am concerned with the development of a new polyphonic music in which the interaction, or rather entangled intra-action, of individual voices and overall composition is taken into account. At the same time, the frequencentric, i.e. tonal, harmonic, frequency-dependent, view of music is criticized. This is opposed by an emphasis on rhythm, speed and temporality. Both in globalization, i.e. the global networking of production and the accompanying logistics infrastructures, the connection of local history with (universal and imperial) human history or the history of social movements, as well as in the synchronization through computers and internet culture, phenomena can be found that correspond to this changed conception of space-time. Of particular importance is the crucial position that time, or temporality, occupies in theories and practices of resistance and revolt.

The second part „3. [Case Studies I] Analysis“ analyzes works of different artists and their influence on the development of my ideas. In no way is this a comprehensive listing of all composers or tracks that deal with polymetric, polyrhythmic or polytemporic, but rather a subjective selection.

In the parts „4. [Development] Definitions, Implementations, Tools & Code“ & „5. [Recapitulation] Imaginary DAW-functions – (im-)possible applications“ each chapter starts with the theoretical founding and definitions of necessary terms used in the thesis and is afterwards followed by examples of code developed for my tools. As this thesis is part of an ongoing work in process I‘ve added problems I‘ve stumbled into, while writing the code and/or ideas for further development of the ideas and concepts, even though I haven‘t always had time to test them yet. Most of the tools were developed explicitly for my liveset, so usability in a generative livesettings was a priority. Thus, in most cases, adapting them for fixed composing is still pending.

The part „6. [Case Studies II] in Practice“ provides explanation and material used for certain live-performances using the tools developed in & for this thesis. An exemplary videorecording of my liveset is provided as part of my bachelor work, as well as insight in reusing my sequencing techniques in combination with Korin Rizzo’s “The Glove”. Followed by an analysis of several works produced during the period of study. They show how the concepts developed here and their making were already mutually influencing each other.

The last part „7. [Coda] Conclusions“ gives a brief overview of the developed. And summarizes the concepts for further development, as well as the problems I‘ve had in the process. Generally speaking it provides an outlook on future explorations.

               “Modern, Western man, however lives in a world which runs according to the mechanical and                mathematical symbols of clock time. The clock dictates his movements and inhibits his actions.                The clock turns time from a process of nature into a commodity that can be measured and bought                and sold like soap or sultanas. And because, without some means of exact time keeping,                industrial capitalism could never have developed and could not continue to exploit the workers,                the clock represents an element of mechanical tyranny in the lives of modern men more potent                than any individual exploiter or any other machine. It is valuable to trace the historical process                by which the clock influenced the social development of modern European civilisation.

               It is a frequent circumstance of history that a culture or civilisation develops the device which                will later be used for its destruction. The ancient Chinese, for example, invented gunpowder,                which was developed by the military experts of the West and eventually led to the Chinese                civilisation itself being destroyed by the high explosives of modern warfare. Similarly, the                supreme achievement of the ingenuity of the craftsmen in the medieval cities of Europe was the                invention of the mechanical clock, which, with it’s revolutionary alteration of the concept of                time, materially assisted the growth of exploiting capitalism and the destruction of medieval                culture. […]

            The problem of the clock is, in general, similar to that of the machine. Mechanical time is                valuable as a means of co-ordination of activities in a highly developed society, just as the                machine is valuable as a means of reducing unnecessary labour to the minimum. Both are                valuable for the contribution they make to the smooth running of society, and should be used                insofar as they assist men to co-operate efficiently and to eliminate monotonous toil and social                confusion. But neither should be allowed to dominate mens lives as they do today.“[5]

2. [Exposition] About time

„Neither hyperstitition nor hauntology. Neither utopia nor the death drive. And certainly not a messianic time. To make a situation sideways in time, together.“[6]

present day. heh.

present time. Hahahahahaha.

[statics; indistinct voices in the static]“[7]

Presented is the question of digitalized time, but instead of suggesting the merging of past & future into a permanent-cyclical present(-ism), which combines esoterics with capitalist notion of availability, the idea of ‚present‘ itself is rendered laughable. ‚Present‘ or ‚presentism‘ are a naive hope for falling back into a time before the invention of universal time, but in effect act as the subordination under paradigms of linear-production, yet what we experienced recently is the derailing of universal-linear-time into an ubicomp non-linear-polychrony.[8] Universal-linear-time seems to fracture into synchronized multiplicities of times. While this understanding might suggest a certain ahistoric understanding of or in time, it is to note that, still underlying this process is the assumption

               „that the historical present contains all the unconquered fragments of the past, so the theoretical                mode of presentation of that present also must contain all the fragments of its past:

               ‚In order to develop the laws of bourgeois economy … it is not necessary to write the real history                of the relations of production. But the correct observation and deduction of these laws … always                leads to primary equations … which point toward a past lying behind the system. These                indications … then offer the key to understanding the past – work in its own right.‘ (G, 460-               461)“[9]

The historic-materialistic approach, as outlined in the quote above, assumes that

            “[m]en make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under                self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted                from the past.“[10]

The present is always defined by what has happened before, and by visions of potential futures[11]. It is not a self-contained moment in time, but always already mediated, and in intra-active relation with past and future. And so every moment in time consists of more than one temporality. It is therefor‘ necessary to understand every moment in time as polychronic underlying polytemporal and divergent time-rules, while at the same time relatively situated in the observed space-time, yet every view in the past or future is limited to being the presents view of and/or at it.

               „Was >>ursprünglich<< einmal Rhythmus war, ist es also für uns nicht mehr. Und umgekehrt:                Was für uns Rhythmus ist, war es nicht schon immer.“[12]

It follows that: What is rhythm for us will no longer be. What will be rhythm >>in the future<< hasn‘t been yet.

This is how this opening quotation by Eske Bockelmann could be continued, evoking the grammar of hauntology – that which is not yet/not anymore.[13] Or speaking more clearly of the future of rhythm: “Catastrophe is the past coming apart. Anastrophe is the future coming together. […] This is an age of crackups and melt-downs.”[14] While our understanding (of rhythm) crumbles, is breaking away from the past, destroying our present perception, future (of rhythm) is coming together. This future is polyvocal, polytemporal and non-linear, it is – going full circle back to what it never has been – the emancipation of the voices in polyphony as plurality. If we understand poly- or plural in a playful way, and think of composition and form as always related to the social, it is linked directly to diversity (in a broad understanding of that term). Diversity as heterogeneity.

               „But what if the emancipation of trans people cannot be won through the securing of ‚rights‘?                What if, however, smoothed-over the process of state validation were to become, a meaningful                liberation remained out of view? What if even the most thorought going political defeat of                fascism would not be guaranteed to achieve our social liberation?

               It‘s the questions which Transgender Marxism will begin to answer.

               We offer our answer as a polyphony. There is no authoritative approach to Marx and his                legacy, and nor have we sought to impose one. Marxism is a broad and living tradition, defined                by its continual internal disputations, its varying schools, and its contested orthodoxies.

               Each of these finds inspiration in a different facet of Marx‘s practice.“[15]

If we are to take this serious, it‘s about the emancipation of each single voice, while not forgetting that they – together – form the composition. And as plain composition it‘s still lacking the lived-experience, that‘s a part of sonic practice.

Aesthetics would have to develop how the artistic idea of a work of art

            „is constituted in the life of its elements working off each other and entering into constellation.                To choose as a model for this the dimension of counterpoint, that is, the simultaneous leading                and joining of relatively independent voices, may seem strange. After all, the objective tendency                of new music since Schönberg has been to aim for through-construction, for integral form.                Therefore, it no longer leaves to the individual material dimensions, such as harmony,                counterpoint, form, color, the independence from each other which the traditional subjects of                musical school discipline assigned to them. It strives to unify all these dimensions, especially the          horizontal and the vertical, and to derive them, where possible, from an identical core. The move                towards this is by no means limited to the Schönbergian twelve-tone technique and the efforts                stemming from it towards a serial design that also includes time in the total organization. […]                Generally speaking, every independence and intensification of a musical means affects all the                others, so that that balance, that homeostasis, is formed between them, which the late Schönberg                once defined as the goal to be achieved anew in every composition.

               If, for example, the many-tone, complex, articulated individual sounds release articulated voices                from within themselves, then, conversely, the chords also require consistent voice leading for                their own justification, as the result of which they can be heard logically. […] Since the early                days of the new music, harmony and polyphony have been rubbing against each other, and the                one element increases by virtue of the demands of the other. The definition of the new                contrapuntal thinking as one demanded by the relationship of the compositional moments to each       other reaches into tangible practical rules of thumb of composing. […] Every instrument, every                group of instruments must have something musically resonant, a real “voice” and not, apart from                the melody, mere foundation or filler notes to play, so that it comes to sound. Even the latest                achievement of traditional music, the emancipation of the color values, can only be realized with       the treatment of the simultaneous voices unfolding freely in the tonal space. It thus requires                counterpoint, however much this may still be bound by the relationship to a principally tonal-               harmonic reference scheme and therefore be merely ornamental. One encounters a related                moment with Schönberg. The more complex composing becomes from its own impulses, from                within, the more urgent becomes, as a corrective, the demand for compositional clarity.


               While all moments interpenetrate to the integral unity, they remain nevertheless differentiated                from each other, and only by the function, which each of them exercises and with which it                affects the others, the unity is founded. It is one in the opposites, mediated by them, not an                immediate one. But it is precisely this that awakens the constant concern for clarification. Only                when every formal part, every phrase, every half-phrase, every note unmistakably declares what                it is for as a whole, is the well-organized work protected from falling back into its own opposite,                into chaos. Therefore, also in the relationship of the voices to each other, nothing may remain                unarticulated; they must stand out clearly and distinctly from each other, attain full plasticity.                Likewise, it requires a polyphonic thinking that is awake at every moment, as well as that ability                for transparency, for the gradation of the weights of the individual voices according to main                event, secondary event and mere background, which identifies the polyphonic composer                Schönberg as a contrapuntist in the narrower sense. All counterpoint also has an analytical                function, the decomposition of the complex into distinct partial moments, the articulation of the                simultaneous according to the weight of its constituent parts and according to similarity and                contrast. Its external sign is the designation, introduced by Schoenberg, of main, secondary and                completely receding voices. [WS, 18 SEP 2019].“[16]

These remarks of Th. W. Adorno seem to remain valid until today, and are applied, sometimes more and sometimes less consciously, in the concepts of the avant-garde, but a twist would have to be made at a crucial point: Children of their time, Adorno and Schönberg, correlate totality, in music and society, with homeostasis (negative feedback), a notion that is so close to Norbert Wiener‘s cybernetic work. Cybernetics, as developed by Norbert Wiener and others, did not develop in empty space, but under the impression of two world wars. They were at once models to understand neuro-psychological structures, as they were tools for techno-(social-)control[17]. From a contemporary point of view his rather simplistic understanding and plain positive reception of ‘homeostasis’ as a metaphor for totality is problematic as it lacks in complexity. Therefore it would be necessary to rearticulate totality using the ‘cyberpositive’

            „twist on Norbert Wiener’s ideas of ‘negative feedback’ (homeostasis), and ‘positive feedback’                (runaway tendencies, vicious circles). Where the conservative Wiener valorized ‘negative                feedback’, Plant/Land re-positivized positive feedback–specifically,: the tendency of market                forces to generate disorder and destabilise control structures. [sic]“[18]

Yet again while appreciating the re-positivization of ‘positive feedback’ and its runaway tendencies, its proto-accelerationistic concept seems to be naive nowadays in times of illiberal democracy. Market forces indeed generate disorder and destabilise control structures, but its results are not by any means necessarily positive, progressive or liberating, in contrast the result most of the time is overpowering, violent, and part of reconstitution, or can even reintroduce new control structures; an example for those emerging control structures are filter bubbles driven by ‘positive feedback’.[19] This shows us that in many cases positive feedback, won over negative feedback as general means of control and cybernetically organizing totality. Therefor its necessary to adjust Th. W. Adornos claims on composition, to set his statement right: When Th. W. Adorno via Arnold Schoenberg refers to compositions being in homeostasis, it is due to this historical moment in time and the emergence of cybernetics. Contemporary philosophical thinking and thinking about compositions has to be informed by a wider range of contemporary events, sciences and historic studies, in particular historic materialism, as well as by recent developments: cybernetics, digitality, globalization, finance, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, chaos theory, ecological- and environmental-science, among many more. But at the same time being out of joint, untimely, historically informed, as to not forget about religious systems, heretics, magick and demonology, or other systems of knowledge and wisdom discarded over time or by discourse.[20]

What seemed irrational and incomprehensible at a time, nowadays has changed. It might still be difficult to acoustically grasp the concept of chaos theory by plain hearing, yet it can not any longer be dismissed as ‚chaos‘ in a classical sense (pre-Chaos Theory). To understand totality, as an entangled interplay of negative and positive feedback, will bring us back to polyphony, but not as we used to hear and compose it. It is a compos[t]ed polyphony, just as ‚cyberpunk‘ was originally termed ‚Neuromancer‘[21] bearing the marks of ‚romanticism‘, ‚neurology‘, ‚necromancy‘ and ‚neu‘ (the german term for ‘new’) at the same time. This reemerged polyphony assumes that the universal (standard) time, underlying the principle of the metronome, is always already at place, that human intraaction is always already synchronized by networks of communication, and always already conducted by the power of state and capital. Every voice always already is integrated into the totality, but not without force and violence. To liberate those voices from within this totality is what is at stake, as is the liberation (of humanity) of mankind and (non-human) from mankind. The trick is difficult as the underlying concept of time(-tracking) became some sort of fetishized 2nd nature[22], a human made thing perceived of as natural pregiven, and is integrated in many other machines.

Ernst Bloch, Walter Benjamin and Herbert Marcuse, just as Th. W. Adorno part of the so called ‚Critical Theory‘ or ‚Frankfurt School‘, develop a similar concept of multiversive polychronicity:

               “Philosophically speaking, it is about the critique of universal history as a critique of progress,                without giving up the universal utopia of a humanum. Here there are two points of contact for                Bloch’s theory of history – mediated via Benjamin – with regard to the historical process logic of           non-simultaneity: Bloch grasps this once in the later ‘Tübingen Introduction to Philosophy’ with                the concept of multiverse, of multi-spatiality, respectively in reference to modern physics as                multi-temporality, against mere multiculturalism, against linearity of progress. Bloch secondly                grasps this with the concept of the carpet with regard to art developments and their historical                meaning in the early writing ‘Spirit of Utopia’. – First, on the multiverse:

               ‚The concept of progress does not tolerate ‘cultural circles’ in which time is reactionarily nailed                to space, but it needs instead of unilinearity a broad, elastic, completely dynamic multiverse, a                continuous and often intertwined counterpoint of historical voices. Thus, in order to do justice to            the vast non-European material, it is no longer possible to work in a unilinear way, no longer                without bulges in the series, no longer without complicated new time manifoldness (problem of a             ‘Riemannian’ time).‘29 As for the many voices, Benjamin noted a similar picture: ‚The                multiplicity of histories is similar to the multiplicity of languages. Universal history in the                contemporary sense can only ever be a kind of Esperanto. The idea of universal history is a                messianic one.‘30 – Second, on the concept of carpet: messianism is materialistically mediated                in Benjamin, in Bloch materialism is mediated with concrete utopia; the multiverse weaves the                red runner of human history; its fabric is the red thread, its pattern aesthetic pretense of real                humanism. Bloch takes the image of the carpet from Lukács and uses it to grasp the basic sound                of history, against art-historical, chronological succession thinking.3”[23]

A polyvocal-polyphonic, polychronic, polytemporal, polyhistoric, multiversal, understanding of space-time and reality develops from combined ‚classical‘ and quantum physics, as kinetic materialism.

Just like the proponents of Critical Theory’s Frankfurt School make use of quantum theoretical understanding of time in combination with messianic thought in judaism, the afrofuturist art group “Black Quantum Futurism” provides a beautiful example of combining quantum theory with spiritual thinking with their „BQF Correspondence Chart“ by Rasheedah Phillips in: Black Quantum Futurism „Theory & Practice“. It is provided in the “Appendix”.

Or in the terms of a non-standard marxism following Francois Laruelle:

               “Quantum theory substitutes for the old dialectic, superposition substitutes for totality, and the                quant substitutes for the commutativity of philosophical dialectic”[24].

In a similar fashion kinetic materialism[25], is a dynamic study of movement(s), of relations and powers that are in constant flux.

               „Whence the importance of scales, proportions and rhythms. To conceive physical reality and its           relation to the sensible and physiological reality of human being, modern philosophy proposed                two schemas: the Kantian, or neo-Kantian, and the empirical, or positivist. According to the first,       phenomena – the flux of sensations – are classified, arranged and organised in accordance with a             priori categories, which is to say categories interior to the subject and consciousness, including                time and space. The in-itself (the noumenal) eludes the grasp of the ‚subject‘. According to                empiricism and positivism, sensible facts are arranged of their own accord in relations of                simultaneity, implication and causal entailment. ‚If A implies B and B implies C, the A implies                C.‘ No need for categories other than those of logic (the logical), which are anyhow not so much                categories as self-evident experiential data, transcribed in a formal language.

               But knowledge, from Newton to Einstein and contemporary physics, has followed another path,                equally demarcated by certain philosophies, such as that of Feuerbach. It is correct that we only                perceive our relation to objects of nature as we do our relation to objects of production or in a                word, to realities; in such a way that we have to distinguish between appearances – which are                themselves a reality – and what is actually inside these things. For example, they seem inert (this       wooden table, this pencil, etc.) and nonetheless they move, albeit only within the movements of                the earth: they contain movements and energies: they change, etc. The same goes for social                relations as for physical reality: this immobile object before me is the product of labour; the                whole chain of the commodity conceals itself inside this material and social object. As a                consequence, it is necessary to go beyond facts, phenomena and the flux of immediate                sensations, but neither the inside nor the beyond of the phenomenon and the sensible fact are                determined internally and purely a priori as was believed in the Kantian tradition.“[26]

Although ‘rhythm’ was an important term during the last century, it was widely ignored  in compositional practice, even though it’s a time-based art, we’re still missing a solid basis of it’s understanding:

            „In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, rhythm attracted considerable interest and                even became a ‚fetishized keyword of modernism‘ (Cowan 2012: 18-19 in Henriques, Tianen                and Väiliaho 2014: 7). This period was marked by significant shifts in the pace and reach of                everyday life such as the development of mechanized transport and associated processes of                industrialization, changes which gave rise to considerable anxiety and increased awareness of                rhythm. The appeal of rhythm was in its capacity to capture the dynamism and fluidity of the                times, and as a potential force for transformation. There are some interesting parallels between                this earlier period and the global and fluid character of society and economy in the present day.                Thinking with rhythm may have something to offer debates on the excessive pace of life and the          attractions of lower living.“[27]

With ‘rhythmanalysis’[28] the french marxist thinker Henri Lefebvre developed a historic-materialistically informed understanding of space, time and rhythm(s) in his book „Rhythmanalysis – space, time and everyday life“ for his analysis of everyday (urban) life, that bears lots of similarities and some differences to the already outlined concepts, and until today is still providing a solid structure and lay ground for contemporary ‚rhythm studies‘. His basic vocabular is summarized in the following illustration:

Illustration 2: Lefebvre's vocabulary of rhythm by Dawn Lyon "Rhythmanalysis - Research Methods".

It would make sense to address the terms Eurhythmia, Arrhythmia, Isorhythmia & Dressage in a continuum of ‘resonance’ & ‘desonance’[29].

While he uses these in a broad context for analyzing socio-spacio-temporal relations in dynamic fluidity.

               „Temporality is not chronology, Ingold reminds us (2000: 194). Chronometric time both                misses the lived experience or ‚texture‘ of time (Flaherty 2011) and what Mark Harvey                (1999) calls ‚economies of time‘. Economies of time suggest that the coordination, sequencing                and articulation of work/other activities produce particular temporalities – and rhythms.


               He explores synchronization in time and sychorization (coordination in space) among three                groups of workers subject to the disruptions of flexible capitalism:


               Lefebvre and Régulier point out how we largely become aware of our rhythms ‚when we suffer                from some irregularity‘ or disorderliness (2004a: 77). Indeed, disruptions and crises have                ‚origins in and effects on rhythms‘, Lefebvre notes. They produce a kind of ‚hole in time‘ which                can be filled by a creation or an invention (Lefebvre 2004:44).4 While Lefebvre was keen to see                the transformatory potential of these ‘cracks‘ and opening in the flow of spacetime (his                ‚moments‘ discussed in Chapter 2), he argues that disruption reveals thythm, rendering visible                what was previously unnoticed and under the surface. ‚The value of disruption‘ is as a site of                politics and a space of possibility for newness, different actions and interventions; and it is                also a ‚heuristic device‘ for doing research into rhythm (Edensor 2000:135-7).[30]

It is important to notice the difference between physical temporality (‘Zeitlichkeit’) and historical chronology, as well as chronometric time (time in a measured and measureable grid of time). The chronometric time, exemplified by clock-time, may not be confused with (subjectively) lived experience (of time). On the meeting point between those two forms of time (lived experience and chronometric time), we struggle with an ‘economy of time’ as everyday life is turned into a commodity among others. In the division between synchronization in time and sychorization (as coordination in space), we find great tools for understanding space-time in capitalist society. Rhythm therefor can be understood as a measure for smoothness and tempo of this process. Rhythmanalysis provides tools for understanding organization of everyday life in micro- and macroscale, in the social and nature, and for breaking down meta-rhythms into sub-rhythms (or vice versa)[31]. Irregularities produce holes and cracks in rhythm(s) that open up transformative potential for intervention.

It’s the logic of revolt and resistance to undermine certain regimes of time:

            „The revolt ought to be considered on its own terms, in its autonomy, in its intensified                experience of time. If the revolution prepares tomorrow, the revolt evokes the future that comes                after tomorrow. It is thus a moment of striking consciousness, for it opens up a passageway into                the future. This explains why it is of step with the present: whoever has no today can be driven to            become the protagonist of the moment, to suspend historical time. This is an attempt which both                forces things, like a sudden attack, and on the other hand neglects the question of the results, for                it does not tend to its own survival. Constitutively out of step with the present, the revolt is an                impatient epiphany of the future that comes after tomorrow.“[32]

To disrupt a linear process, to slow something down, and accelerate something else, to find niches, to follow underlying currents, to undermine domination by clock time, … these are fundamentals of revolt, resistance and destitution.

               „Destitution therefore also names that mechanism that deactivates temporalities and causal                regimes, the codes that, in the past, allowed one to decipher the movements of struggle, to                predict and explain their motivations. In this way, multiple temporalities are liberated, the “fibers                of time”17 that lie beneath the crust of a capitalist domain that acts precisely by absorbing the                chronological fragmentation of experiences into the regulatory framework of a single, abstract,                spatialized time. It is these fragmentary experiences and “worlds” that contemporary struggles                serve to reopen. In fact, according to the philosopher Bernard Aspe, every authentic “collective”                — philosophical, artistic, but above all a political collective of a revolutionary kind — takes                shape through the affirmation of a “common time” which, in order to flourish, must escape the                synchronization apparatus of the economy and capitalist synthesis.

               So long as the boundary of individual existence remains limited to the private isolation of                subjective time, so long as every intensive, lived and concrete connection to the times of others                is annulled, the only foothold for organizing our existence lies in the reference to abstract time.                For Aspe, it is the alliance between the private time of, let’s say ‘daily activities,’ and that of                abstract time that prevents the formation of shared times: I am so isolated in my personal time                that I have no connection except to the clock face. In this sense, the work of “synchronization”                between discordant times becomes a function monopolized by capitalism, expropriated from our         spectrum of existential, and hence political, capacities. The world of economic domination is the          time that imposes itself on all others, the extraneous and artificial articulation of multiple                temporalities:

   Contemporary capitalism depends upon the articulation between the empty form of    clock time and the disparate multiplicity of temporalities that the latter subsumes.    In other words, it rests on a monopoly of synchronization that remains external to    the processes and activities whose coordination it makes possible. This    synchronicity does not occur solely through the ticking of the clock, even if this    continues to epitomize the primary resource of capitalism. This synchronicity also    occurs through the necessity imposed on all of us to remain in sync with the    evolution of the apparatuses of communication by means of which the space of    planetary synchronicity is deployed.18

               The destituent violence of uprisings unleashes these previously bridled and compressed plural                temporalities, it   gives them a chance not only to manifest themselves, but also, consequently, to            harmonize and resonate with one another, to break out of their autistic isolation, without being                reduced to a pure cacophony. As the Invisible Committee writes in a suggestive passage, the way        revolt expands and mutates into a revolutionary dynamic does not resemble a forest fire, since its           ‘contagion’ does not follow a linear chronological process that, however rapid, would be                continuous and gradual; rather, there are moments of resonance and vibration that connect distant   places through a rhythmic correspondence that has something “musical” about it:

   Revolutionary movements do not spread by contamination but by resonance.    Something that is constituted here resonates with the shock wave emitted by    something over there. A body that resonates does so according to its own mode. An    insurrection is not like a plague or a forest fire — a linear process which spreads    from place to place after an initial spark. It rather takes the shape of a music,    whose focal points, though dispersed in time and space, succeed in imposing the             rhythm of their own vibrations, always taking on more density. To the point that               any return to normal is no longer desirable or even imaginable.19

               In 2001, Tiqqun had already observed evocatively that, “in a sense, the revolutionary question is            now a musical one.”20[33]

The author uses the term ‘destitution’ to provide a counterprocess to constitution. Destitution is not so much the idea to set something into place as to abolish something that is already in place. In this concept constitution is not the basis, the point of departure, but retroactively debasing the actually preceding destitution. Furthermore they extend the analysis, already provided earlier in this text, of how capitalist economization of time constitutes a time-regime that synchronies multi-temporalities to a universal (standard) time and provides basis for unified measurement of different activities, subsuming them under generalization of measured clock-time. Against superimposed universal time they propose ‘common time’ as a shared time using the sonic/musical metaphors of resonance, rhythm and vibration to understand those processes.

Lisa Robertson tackles our underdeveloped understanding of rhythm, providing a much broader and generalized concept beyond metrics and regularity:

               „Rhythm, an expression of form, is time, but it is time as the improvisation that moves each                limited body in play with a world. Not necessarily metrical or regular, it‘s the passing                shapeliness that we inhabit. It both has a history and is the history that our thinking has made. As          I achieved the apex of excitement in my rereading of this beautiful document, attempting                 grasp anew how a concept becomes quite literally a landscape (for only much later in the history                of this word had rhythm come to articulate and even make perceivable the repeating or cycling                patterns we attribute now to nature), I felt the tick on my neck.“[34]

As we see rhythm in music is not so much happening in time, as it is at the same time producing time:

               „Drum your fingers on the table when bored and the rhythm seems to speed the waiting on. Sing                a favourite old song to recall happy times past or ward off fears of things to come. In countless                similar ways, music has    long been used to provide structure to the day, the year, or even longer                periods of time: music for harvest time, for remembrance, to augur or forestall. […] Music is a                machine for producing anticipation. Over the course of about three hundred years, from the end                of the renaissance to the turn of the twentieth century, the tonal system of Western classical                music was gradually engineered to become an extraordinarily sophisticated system for managing             that anticipation. Certain chords would seem to beckon other chords to follow them. A sonata    theme looked forward eagerly to its own recapitulation. Every note, every phrase would be                precisely tailored to set up particular expectations that would either be fulfilled or frustrated,                producing specific sensations in the listener.“[35]

When we listen to a single note, we anticipate its repetition. The introduction of the musical measure coincides with the scientific concept of measuring and the building of bourgeois capitalist society. To analyze the repetition of a sound 1 1 1 1 as divided into groups of 2 or 3, of accented and unaccented notes, therefor counting 1 2 3 4 or 1 2 3 (…), is not a given, but developed[36].

               „Quantity alone is just the „oneness“ or unity of the object. Measurement, however, links one                thing (a quantity with qualities) to another thing (quantity with qualities). […] This practice of                comparing two or more thing through a third thing is already the basis of exchange-value, […]

               This is what Marx means when he says that measurement, of which exchange-value is one type,                is defined in part by natural qualities of sensuous objects but also in part by social convention.“[37]

Today a generaly assumed (Universal Standard Time) and a digitaly produced (the grid of datasets, i.e. samplerate) are two hegemonic forms of time-regimes. Those are the exchange value of time. An empty potential event in time. The abstract equivalent of time, its conceptualization as thing for measurement. So forcefully felt in counting the hours of work and leisure time, of leisure time and ‚lost hours‘.

It also seems necessary to differentiate between human[38] and non-human[39] time. With developement of technological tools ‚non-human‘ time becomes especially interesting as machines (clocks, metronomes, timecodes, or DAWs) take over or add (their perspective) to our very own subjective experience. They add to our experience because they are either in another place (i.e. livestream or radio), on a micro- or macroscale (i.e. samples and subatomic or generative music and universe)[40]  or in another time (i.e. a played back recording).

This becomes aware easily when we think about recordings (a technical side of time):

               „TIME MOVES IN ONE DIRECTION, memory in another.
               We are that strange species that constructs artifacts intended to counter the natural flow of                forgetting.

               I sometimes think that nothing really is new; that the first pixels were particles of ocher clay, the          bison rendered in just the resolution required. The bison still function perfectly, all these                millennia later, and what screen in the world today shall we say that of in a decade? And yet the                bison will be there for us, on whatever screens we have, carried out of the primal dark on some                impulse we each have felt, as children, drawing. But carried nonetheless on this thing we have                always been creating, this vast unlikely mechanism that carries memory in its interstices; this                global, communal, prosthetic memory that we have been building since before we learned to                build. We live in, have lived through, a strange time. I know this because when I was a child, the                flow of forgetting was relatively unimpeded. I know this because the dead were less of a constant                presence, then. Because there was once no Rewind button. Because the soldiers dying in the                Somme were black and white, and did not run as the living run. Because the world’s attic was                still untidy. Because there were old men in the mountain valleys of my Virginia childhood who                remembered a time before recorded music. When we turn on the radio in a New York hotel room                and hear Elvis singing “Heartbreak Hotel,” we are seldom struck by the peculiarity of our                situation: that a dead man sings. In the context of the longer life of the species, it is something                that only just changed a moment ago. It is something new, and I sometimes feel that, yes,                everything has changed. (This perpetual toggling between nothing being new, under the sun, and        everything having very recently changed, absolutely, is perhaps the central driving tension of my          work.) Our “now” has become at once more unforgivingly brief and unprecedentedly elastic.                The half-life of media product grows shorter still, till it threatens to vanish altogether, everything                into some weird quantum logic of its own, the Warholian Fifteen Minutes becoming a quarklike                blink. Yet once admitted to the culture’s consensus pantheon, certain things seem destined to be                with us for a very long time indeed. This is a function, in large part, of the Rewind button. And                we would all of us, to some extent, wish to be in heavy rotation. And as this capacity for recall                (and recommodification) grows more universal, history itself is seen to be even more obviously a             construct, subject to revision. If it has been our business, as a species, to dam the flow of time                through the creation and maintenance of mechanisms of external memory, what will we become                when all these mechanisms, as they now seem intended ultimately to do, merge? The end-point of            human culture may well be a single moment of effectively endless duration, an infinite digital                Now. But then, again, perhaps there is nothing new, in the end of all our beginnings, and the                bison will be there, waiting for us.“[41]

Illustration 3: originally published by Curtis Roads "Microsound"




[1]Virginia Woolf as cited in: Black Quantum Futurism, Theory & Practice, 75.

[2]Lyrics of Clock Fight by Moor Mother, . All following lyrics will be aligned right.

[3]Francois Laruelle, A New Presentation of Non-Philosophy ; italics in the original text, .

[4]i.e.: Francois Laruelle, Photo-Fiction, a Non-Standard Aesthetics, Jarrod Fowler, non-musicology, , Achim Szepanski, Der Non-Marxismus, Inigo Wilkins Irreversible Noise – Non-Standard Aesthetics and Irreversible Noise, Katerina Kolozowa, Tero Nauha From Schizoproduction to Non-standard Artistic Research, and many more

[5]George Woodcock, The Tyranny Of The Clock, .

[6]McKenzie Wark (@mckenziewark) on Twitter: .

[7]Opening theme of the Anime serial experiments lain

[8]In more detail in chapter „4.8 Ubicomptime“

[9]Thomas Nail, Marx in Motion – A New Materialist Marxism, 77.

[10]Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte.

[11]Through debt, derivatives, and other financial machines, these futures are already predetermined to some degree. Likewise, the past is continuously rewritten, while the material conditions it produced determine the present.

[12]Eske Bockelmann, Im Takt des Geldes – Zur Genese modernen Denkens, 30.
„What >>originally<< once was rhythm is therefore no longer so for us. And vice versa: What is rhythm for us, it has not always been.“

[13]I‘ve published my personal take on a brief history of time, teleology, hauntology, retromania, and the ‚end of history‘ already as: Bill B. Wintermute, Sidesnotes to hauntology // Randnotizen zur Hantologie (german only).

See also: Jacques Derrida „Marx Gespenster“:

       „Three things, then, would decompose in analysis this single thing, spirit, or specter—or king, for the king occupies this place, here the place of the father, whether he keeps it, takes it, or usurps it, and beyond the return of the rhyme (for example “The Play’s the thing,/Wherein Ile catch the Conscience of the King”). King is a thing, Thing is the King, precisely where he separates from his body which, however, does not leave him (contract of secession, necessary pact in order to have more than one body, that is, in order to reign, and, first of all, to inherit royal dignity, whether by crime or election: “The body is with the King, but the King is not with the body. The King, is a thing”).
What, then, are these three things of the thing?
1. First of all, mourning. We will be speaking of nothing else. It consists always in attempting to ontologize remains, to make them present, in the first place by identifying the bodily remains and by localizing the dead (all ontologization, all semanticization— philosophical, hermeneutical, or psychoanalytical—finds itself caught up in this work of mourning but, as such, it does not yet think it; we are posing here the question of the specter, to the specter, whether it be Hamlet’s or Marx’s, on this near side of such thinking). One has to know. One has to know it. One has to have knowledge [Il faut le savoir]. Now, to know is to know who and where, to know whose body it really is and what place it occu- pies—for it must stay in its place. In a safe place. Hamlet does not ask merely to whom the skull belonged (“Whose was it?” the question that Valéry quotes). He demands to know to whom the grave belongs (“Whose grave’s this, sir?”). Nothing could be worse, for the work of mourning, than confusion or doubt: one has to know who is buried where—and it is necessary (to know—to make certain) that, in what remains of him, he remain there. Let him stay there and move no more!
2. Next, one cannot speak of generations of skulls or spirits (Kant qui genuit Hegel qui genuit Marx) except on the condition of lan- guage—and the voice, in any case of that which marks the name or takes its place (“Hamlet: That Scull had a tongue in it, and could sing once”).
3. Finally (Marx qui genuit Valéry . . .), the thing works, whether it transforms or transforms itself, poses or decomposes itself: the spirit, the “spirit of the spirit” is work. But what is work? What is its concept if it supposes the spirit of the spirit? Valéry under- scores it: “By ‘Spirit’ here I mean a certain power of transformation . . . the spirit . . . works.”;
Mark Fisher, Ghosts of my life.
Frederic Neyrat, Hosting the Ghost: On Limbo Aesthetics, 2021, .

[14]Nick Land, Sadie Plant, Cyberpositive, .

[15]Jules Joanne Gleeson & Elle O‘Rourke, ed., TransGenderMarxism, 6. bold-highlightings added by author

[16]Translated by the author with deepl from the german original:
„Der Ort der Philosophie der Kunst sind deren technologische Kraftfelder: die Spannungen, die jedes Kunstwerk objektiv in sich verschließt, sind zugleich das Medium seiner Wahrheit und damit der philosophischen Interpretation. Triftige musikalische Ästhetik hätte zu entwickeln, wie der geistige Gehalt eines Kunstwerkes − das, was in der Sprache der traditionellen Philosophie künstlerische Idee hieß − sich konstituiert im Leben seiner aneinander sich abarbeitenden und in Konstellation tretenden Elemente. Als Modell dafür die Dimension des Kontrapunkts, also der gleichzeitigen Führung und Fügung relativ selbständiger Stimmen, auszusuchen, mag befremden. Denn die neue Musik hat es ihrer objektiven Tendenz nach seit Schönberg auf Durchkonstruktion, auf integrale Gestalt abgesehen. Daher beläßt sie den einzelnen Materialdimensionen, wie Harmonik, Kontrapunkt, Form, Farbe nicht länger jene Unabhängigkeit voneinander, welche ihnen die traditionellen Fächer der musikalischen Schuldisziplin zuwiesen. Sie trachtet, alle diese Dimensionen, vor allem aber Horizontale und Vertikale, zu vereinheitlichen, wo möglich aus einem identischen Kern abzuleiten. Der Zug dazu beschränkt sich keineswegs auf die Schönbergische Zwölftontechnik und die von dieser herstammenden Bestrebungen zu einer seriellen, auch die Zeit in die totale Organisation einbeziehenden Gestaltung.


         Allgemein tangiert jede Verselbständigung und Intensivierung eines musikalischen Mittels alle anderen, damit zwischen ihnen jenes Gleichgewicht, jene Homöostase sich bildet, die der späte Schönberg einmal als das in jeder Komposition aufs neue zu erreichende Ziel definierte.

         Wenn also etwa die vieltönigen, komplexen, in sich artikulierten Einzelklänge aus sich heraus artikulierte Stimmen entlassen, so bedürfen umgekehrt die Akkorde zu ihrer eigenen Rechtfertigung auch konsequenter Stimmführung, als deren Resultat sie sich logisch hören lassen. […] Seit der Frühzeit der neuen Musik reiben sich Harmonik und Polyphonie aneinander, und das eine Element steigert sich kraft der Forderungen des anderen. Die Bestimmung des neuen kontrapunktischen Denkens als eines vom Verhältnis der kompositorischen Momente zueinander geforderten reicht bis in handfest praktische Faustregeln des Komponierens hinein. […]  Jedes Instrument, jede Instrumentengruppe muß etwas musikalisch Ausschwingendes, eine wirkliche »Stimme« und nicht, außer der Melodie, bloße Fundament- oder Füllnoten zu spielen haben, damit es zum Klingen komme. Selbst die späteste Errungenschaft der traditionellen Musik, die Emanzipation der Farbwerte, kann sich realisieren nur bei frei im Tonraum sich entfaltender Behandlung der Simultanstimmen. Sie bedarf damit des Kontrapunkts, wie sehr im übrigen dieser auch noch durch die Beziehung auf ein prinzipiell tonal-harmonisches Bezugsschema gefesselt und daher bloß ornamental sein mag. Man begegnet einem verwandten Moment bei Schönberg. Je komplexer das Komponieren von seinen eigenen Impulsen, von innen her sich anläßt, um so dringlicher wird, als Korrektiv, die Forderung kompositorischer Deutlichkeit.


         Während alle Momente zur integralen Einheit sich durchdringen, bleiben sie gleichwohl voneinander unterschieden, und erst durch die Funktion, die ein jegliches von ihnen ausübt und mit der es die andern affiziert, wird die Einheit gestiftet. Sie ist eine in den Gegensätzen, durch sie vermittelt, keine unmittelbare. Gerade das aber weckt die stete Sorge um Verdeutlichung. Nur wenn jeder Formteil, jede Phrase, jede Halbphrase, jede Note unmißverständlich bekundet, wozu sie im ganzen da ist, wird das durchorganisierte Werk vorm Rückschlag in sein eigenes Gegenteil, ins Chaos behütet. Daher darf auch im Verhältnis der Stimmen zueinander nichts unartikuliert bleiben, sie müssen klar und distinkt voneinander sich abheben, volle Plastik erlangen. Gleichermaßen bedarf es eines in jedem Augenblick wachen polyphonen Denkens wie jener Fähigkeit zur Transparenz, zur Stufung der Gewichte der einzelnen Stimmen nach Hauptereignis, Nebenereignis und bloßem Hintergrund, die den Polyphoniker Schönberg als Kontrapunktiker im engeren Sinn ausweist. Aller Kontrapunkt hat auch eine analytische Funktion, die Zerlegung des Komplexen in distinkte Teilmomente, die Artikulation des Gleichzeitigen nach dem Gewicht seiner Bestandstücke und nach Ähnlichkeit und Kontrast. Ihr äußeres Zeichen ist die von Schönberg eingeführte Bezeichnung von Haupt-, Neben- und ganz zurücktretenden Stimmen. [WS, 18.09.2019].“ (Th. W. Adorno, Die Funktion des Kontrapunkts in der neuen Musik. Für Rudolf Kolisch in treuer Freundschaft . Bold-highlightings added by author

[17]See: Hans-Christian Dany, Schneller als die Sonne: Aus dem rasenden Stillstand in eine unbekannte Zukunft. And Hans-Christian Dany, Morgen werde ich Idiot: Kybernetik und Kontrollgesellschaft.

[18]Simon Reynolds, RENEGADE ACADEMIA: THE Cybernetic Culture Research Unit .

[19]An in depth take on contemporary self-governance can be found in my previous text: Bill B. Wintermute, (Cybernetic-)‘Post-Pop‘: Affect Art(s) & (Emotional) Self-Governing, in Achim Szepanski, Ultrablack of Music. Available online via: .

[20]As already explained in the initial remarks on non-standard-philosophy by Francois Laruelle. Similarly in the schools of new materialism or speculative realism.

[21]See: William Gibson, Neuromancer.
Mark Fisher, Flatline Constructs: Gothic Materialism and Cybernetic Theory-Fiction.

[22]See: Critical Theory, Frankfurt School

[23]Translated from the german original, using
„Es geht, philosophisch gesprochen, um Kritik der Universalgeschichte als Fortschrittskritik, ohne die universale Utopie eines Humanum preiszugeben. Hier gibt es für Blochs Geschichtstheorie zwei – über Benjamin vermitteltbare – Anknüpfungspunkte in bezug auf die historische Prozeßlogik der Ungleichzeitigkeit: Bloch faßt dies einmal in der späteren ›Tübinger Einleitung in die Philosophie‹ mit dem Konzept Multiversum, der Vielräumigkeit, beziehungsweise in Anlehnung an moderne Physik als Vielzeitigkeit, gegen den bloßen Multikulturalismus, gegen Fortschrittslinearität. Bloch faßt zweitens dies mit dem Begriff des Teppichs in Hinblick auf Kunstentwicklungen und ihre geschichtliche Bedeutungsstellung in der frühen Schrift ›Geist der Utopie‹. – Erstens zum Multiversum:

         »Der Fortschrittsbegriff duldet keine ›Kulturkreise›, worin die Zeit reaktionär auf den Raum genagelt ist, aber er braucht statt der Einlinigkeit ein breites, elastisches, völlig dynamisches Multiversum, einen währenden und oft verschlungenen Kontrapunkt der historischen Stimmen. So läßt sich, um dem riesigen außereuropäischen Material gerecht zu werden, nicht mehr einlinig arbeiten, nicht mehr ohne Ausbuchtungen der Reihe, nicht mehr ohne komplizierte neue Zeit-Mannigfaltigkeit (Problem einer ›Riemannschen‹ Zeit).« 29 Was die vielen Stimmen angeht, hat Benjamin ein ähnliches Bild notiert: »Die Vielheit der Historien ist der Vielheit der Sprachen ähnlich. Universalgeschichte im heutigen Sinne kann immer nur eine Art von Esperanto sein. Die Idee der Universalgeschichte ist eine messianische.«30 – Zweitens zum Begriff Teppich: Messianismus ist bei Benjamin materialistisch vermittelt, bei Bloch ist der Materialismus mit konkreter Utopie vermittelt; das Multiversum webt den roten Läufer der menschlichen Geschichte; sein Stoff ist der rote Faden, sein Muster ästhetischer Vor-Schein des realen Humanismus. Das Bild des Teppichs nimmt Bloch von Lukács und gebraucht es, um den Grundklang der Geschichte zu begreifen, gegen kunstgeschichtliches, chronologisches Abfolgedenken.3“

         (Roger Behrens, Aktualisierung des Ungleichzeitigen. Anmerkungen zur Prozeßlogik einer mehrschichtigen Dialektik, .)

[24]Achim Szepanski, The Quantum Marxism Of Laruelle, .

[25]See also: Thomas Nail (i.e. Marx in Motion – A New Materialist Marxism) or Frédéric Neyrat Literature and Materialisms.

[26]Henri Lefebvre, Rhythmanalysis – Space, Time And Everyday Life, 82.

[27]Dawn Lyon, Rhythmanalysis – Research Methods, 6.

[28]„a) repitition (of movements, gestures, action, situations, differences);

       b) interferences of linear processes and cyclical processes;

       c) birth, growth, peak, then decline and end.“

       (Henri Lefebvre, Rhythmanalysis – Space, Time And Everyday Life, 25.)

[29]Desonance is a term coined by philosopher Zafer Aracagök [a.k.a. SIFIR]. xoxo

[30]Dawn Lyon, Rhythmanalysis – Research Methods, 86. Bold highlightings added.

[31]„We can suppose that the western order established since Latinity and the Roman Empire could not easily have broken-in Orientals and Africans. After the efforts that history calls colonialism, not without notable effects, the failure of this occidental dressage is today evident on a world scale. It finds ways for those who escape our conjoined models (dressage-identifications-reduced and stereotyped differences).

       The substance [matière] is the crowd (or molecules, corpuscles), it is a body.

       The crowd is a body, the body is a crowd (of cells, of liquids, of organs).

       Societies are composed of crowds, of groups, of bodies, of classes, and constitute peoples. They understand the rhythms of which living beings, socials bodies, locals groups are made up.

       The concept passes from vague and confused representations to a grasp of the plurality of rhythmic interactions; to diverse degrees and levels: from corpuscles to galaxies, one more time!

       If there is difference and distinction, there is neither separation nor an abyss between so-called material bodies, living bodies, social bodies and representations, ideologies, traditions, projects and utopias. They are all composed of (reciprocally influential) rhythms in interaction. These rhythms are analysed, but the analyses in thought are never brought to term. No more so the analysis of precise social facts like dressage than the analysis of the theatre, of music, of poetry as rhythms.”

       (Henri Lefebvre, Rhythmanalysis – Space, Time And Everyday Life, 42.)

[32]Donatella Di Cesare, The Time Of Revolt, 55.

[33]Michele Garau, Without Why: The Existential A Priori Of Destituent Action, .

[34]Lisa Robertson, The Baudelaire Fractal, 184.

[35]Robert Barry, The Music of the Future, 117/118.

[36]For an in detail analysis see also: Eske Bockelmann, Im Takt des Geldes – Zur Genese modernen Denkens.

[37]Thomas Nail, Marx in Motion – A New Materialist Marxism, 70.

[38]‚Bio-Psycho-Social‘ as human-being. Including making of history, books, etc. In general human (inhabitational) experiences, theories & practices. As well as technology under certain aspects.

[39]Geology, animals, plants, matter & technology (the last one under certain aspects).

[40]Also see following illustration.

[41]William Gibson, Distrust That Particular Flavor, 74.

[42]Paul Hegarty, a chronic condition: noise and time in reverberations – the philosophy, aesthetics and politics of noise, 25.

[43]Listen: Conlon Nancarrow, Studies for Player Piano, .

[44]See: Karl Heinz Stockhausen, English Lectures (1972), as watched in:

[45]A possible example of this is the last minute of ‚Spiral Tribe‘ affiliated R-Zac „Nazi Europe Fuck Off“ produced in 1993. ‚Spiral Tribe‘ a collective of people travelling around europe in modified trucks doing ‚free tekno‘ events at every stop. They are an especially interesting sidenote as they produce ‚free tekno‘, which avoids genre classification, may include jumps or changes in tempo, employ unvoncentional combinations of sounds and much more.

[46]See: Karl Heinz Stockhausen, English Lectures (1972).

[47]As it is a question of time, as shown in illustration 3, originaly published by Curtis Roads Microsound.

Nach oben scrollen