Right-wing rock: Right-wing rock: “Pop culture is much more divided today than it used to be”

The new »Testcard«-Output bears the simple title “Right-Wing Pop.” What do you understand by this term?

I have to go back a bit. The “Testcard” itself is a bit older (the first edition appeared in 1995, author’s note). And at that time we and magazines like “Spex” had the idea of ​​a pop left, which implied understanding pop as an emancipatory medium and as a complex question about social conditions. The “Testcard” is pretty much the only institution that has survived from this very heterogeneous situation – and that is very significant. Because the idea of ​​pop as a moment of liberation has obviously not come true. First it was watered down and finally it was co-opted by the right. From this development outlined, the term right-wing pop finally became established in our country.

The new issue argues that pop today – unlike in its early days – is no longer automatically future-oriented and emancipation-oriented. How do you come to this conclusion?

As »Testcard« we have always had a historical view of pop culture. And we were always interested in emancipation movements such as the African-American civil rights movement, in which music often played a very important role. Punk is another example, but it asked completely different questions of society than hip-hop. If you look deeper into it, you’ll notice that these moments no longer exist in the same form. The moments in which society is still fundamentally questioned in pop culture today usually come from the right. Be it in the context of the so-called Corona protests, where pop culture elements played an important role, or on an international level the new, recently elected Argentine President Javier Milei, who is presenting himself as a pop star.

At the same time, however, contemporary pop appears to be much more sensitive to phenomena such as misogyny, queer hostility and racism than it was 40 or 50 years ago. Doesn’t this fact clearly contradict the basic thesis of your book?

You could see it that way, yes. I would definitely describe this as the result of pop-left strategies from the past: the active demand for transgressions, for example of rigid gender boundaries. But that’s only one side. I think pop culture as a whole is much more divided than it used to be. At the same time, there is now a much stronger insistence on these very boundaries – one could cite the entire right-wing rock band or Rammstein. That’s why I would say that both exist in parallel. The Rammstein case recently showed this again, when criticism of the band – not even particularly left-wing, but often very bourgeois – was met with massive shitstorms.

The right-wing trend you have diagnosed can also and especially be observed throughout society. So is pop a simple mirror of society? Or is it not rather a social avant-garde and therefore a driving factor for social change – for better or worse?

This can be both the case. The form that pop takes is definitely no guarantee that ideological abysses won’t open up behind it. An article in the magazine deals with Ariel Pink and John Maus (US-American indie musicians, author’s note), both of whom were involved in the storming of the Capitol two years ago. They have always seen themselves as a musical avant-garde and have said, so to speak: We come from a certain pop culture tradition, and that’s why we want to cross borders. And that’s why we want to question this society as such. And that’s interesting at first – although of course dangerous at the same time. That’s why the question can’t be answered so clearly, because more or less both are the case. 20 years ago, we as “Testcard” would probably have supported the thesis that avant-garde music that comes from a certain tradition is not a reflection of current society, but rather a reflection of a better society.

The early punk movement flirted with Nazi symbols such as the swastika on the open stage. In a text in the new “Testcard” you cite the example of Andreas Gabalier, who formed a swastika with his body on the cover of his album “Volksrock ‘n’ Roller”. What differentiates the two examples?

A lot. Opinions can be divided regarding the use of fascist symbols in punk. I personally think that a lot of things are problematic. Given the historical moment, however, it becomes more understandable, since at that time it was particularly about distancing oneself from the parents’ generation, who themselves had fought against the Nazis in the Second World War. And they wanted to provoke them, using the most effective means. Interestingly, in London and New York it was the case that Jewish punks in particular decorated themselves with swastikas. I would therefore say that it is completely under-complex: the symbols were devalued back then. With Gabalier things are different. It’s again about topics like taboos or bans on speaking, but in an affirmative way, so to speak. It was different in punk, because the symbols were never an expression of political positioning.

The last edition of the “Testcard” from 2019 was all about the topic of utopias. The British theorist Mark Fisher once identified a retro fixation in the current pop landscape and, from this, a form of chronic lack of utopia. Is the right-wing trend you have diagnosed a direct consequence of this lack of utopia?

I don’t know if it was an inevitable consequence. The visible trend is that since the fall of the Iron Curtain, society has become increasingly willing to submit to authoritarian structures and that simple answers are more popular than complex questions. This can be observed not only in pop culture, but at all levels of society. I cannot answer the question of whether there is a direct, empirically provable connection between lack of utopia and right-wing bias. But the parallel between the two phenomena is obvious.

Can the shift to the right be countered with regulation – if necessary also with government regulation?

Where border crossings have legal consequences, the state is already doing this. And recently there has been increasing state activity against right-wing musical subcultures, which was ostensibly based on song lyrics and aimed at preventing state funding from benefiting right-wing subcultures. I find that welcome. But a phenomenon like Rammstein cannot be regulated by the state. And that would also be the wrong way. I would rather rely on pop-left strategies – but they are weak at the moment.

When you talk about the pop left: How do you view a phenomenon like Feine Sahne Fischfilet, which does not have a theoretical superstructure, but has been touring through small East German towns for many years and making anti-fascist statements there in a very effective and courageous way?

I don’t rate the band musically because I find their form uninteresting. I still think the band is important for strengthening anti-fascist structures – especially with regard to people who are coming into contact with left-wing counter-positions for the first time. That’s why I wouldn’t want to piss on the band just because I’m not interested in their music.

Do you ever get nostalgic when you look back on times when the pop left was better positioned than it is today?

That’s a good question. I was musically socialized in the mid-90s through punk and everything that was connected to it. For me, pop culture back then meant: sitting somewhere in the village, having no idea and learning a lot about the world and society and their ambivalences through pop. And I have the feeling that it no longer exists in this form – and if it does, I just don’t know where. So of course there’s something nostalgic about looking back on it. At the same time, nostalgia is also a difficult feeling because you can quickly get caught up in the feeling that everything was better in the past. And I definitely don’t want to sound like that.