Kraftwerk, Daft Punk, Frankenstein and Technology

In the past year, I’ve found myself listening to more and more in the way of electronic music. I’ve had an affinity for that sort of thing before then, but it’s come to fruition rather recently. I’ve really been enjoying Daft Punk; there’s something rather compelling and motivational about everything they do. Whilst I enjoy the thumping beats of their early ‘Homework’ stuff, I do enjoy the synthpop-orientated feel of ‘Discovery’, the experimental and gritty feel of ‘Human After All’, and, despite mixed opinions on it, the disco riffs of ‘Random Access Memories’. Of course, all of this is without mentioning the genius in their two live ‘Alive’ albums. I particularly like the latter of the two, the powerful 2007 performance, in which rather different songs are blended together so well it’s impossible to tell that there is a drastic difference. I've also really grown to appreciate the progressive-house power of deadmau5’s extensive discography as well as the innovative work of Justice, who are also very gifted at live performances.

Despite these interests, I’ve also grown to appreciate Kraftwerk over the summer. Although the differences between Kraftwerk and the artists I’ve mentioned are rather major, I’ve definitely been able to enjoy their music, all the more so because of how widely they are recognised as pioneers and innovators of electronic music. While I’d heard some of their music before the summer, I truly took a more absolute interest in them following watching the online coverage of their concert at the Latitude Festival this year. It is truly remarkable how four men by four synthesizers standing still for a prolonged period of time can capture the attention to powerfully with such a little display of physical energy. A relative of mine, funnily enough, didn’t seem to share my enthusiasm for the music; in his words, the bleeps, bloops, and drum-beats of Kraftwerk working their technological magic live was “just noise” in his ears. Each to one’s own, I suppose. Some people enjoy the eloquence of classical music, some like the strength in the thrashing of heavy metal, whilst some appreciate the unique swagger of alternative rock. Personally, I’m very happy at the moment with the energy I see in the bleeps and bloops. I suppose that this energy that existed wasn’t because of the physical movement of the band (or lack thereof), but more because of the pure power of the music itself: its catchy yet repetitive nature, its legacy, its originality, and, in my opinion, the fascinating depth of the themes and ideas explored.

Recently, I purchased ‘The Man-Machine’, containing some of their more famous works. As I was listening to it, this depth made itself very prevalent to me. I must clarify, as much as I enjoy listening to music, I cannot play any instruments personally and know very little in the way of musical theory. However, the depth that I’m talking about is not a depth in a musical sense, although I’m sure that this exists too. The depth that has inspired me to write this entry is an artistic depth, a depth which reflects in the lyrics, the theme and the mood of the songs. What makes the ideas the band explore in ‘The Man-Machine’ particularly effective is how they absolutely seem to encapsulate a lot of what Kraftwerk stands for. That is, the idea of technological development is something very prevalent in their music.

I have a habit of analysing and looking into music lyrics in the same way that I’d approach poetry. There isn’t any real harm in doing so, except that it perhaps takes away from the things that differentiate poetry and music lyrics. Both work on an intrinsically similar level, using sound, rhythm, figurative language and effective pre-modification and complimentary modification to effect. They both have similar purposes of sharing ideas and themes, expressing emotions and causing enjoyment. So, being an English student, I began thinking of these sort of things in the lyrics and themes of Kraftwerk’s music. I found it fascinating the more I thought about it. In all honesty, there’s no guarantee that my interpretation is in any way correct, assuming there’s such thing as a correct interpretation. It seems more oxymoronic the more I consider it. Perhaps my thoughts contradict something that one of the band members has actually said themselves in the past, or a more accurate critical interpretation. That’s probably as close as you can get to a correct interpretation. Regardless, that won’t stop me holding an interpretation, and I’m enthusiastic to organise it in this entry and share it.

Essentially, one thing ‘The Man-Machine’ succeeds in exploring is the dominating and even destructive nature of technology. Despite this, there are certainly positive perceptions of technology in the music. It’s inevitable, considering how dependant Kraftwerk were on technology in regards to their music. The song ‘The Man-Machine’ itself epitomises industrial development completely, the repetitive, heavy, consistent nature of the singing of the same phrase being a reflection on the consistent, constant and automatic nature of industry and mechanics. The tempo of ‘The Robots’ is suggestive of the same thing. The relatively unchanging nature of the music combines the human nature of Kraftwerk with their technology flawlessly; distinguishing the two becomes rather difficult. This does seem to suggest a rather worrying unity, a stern, metallic and cold aspect of man’s voice and human nature. This reflects in the lyrics themselves. “We are the robots”, Kraftwerk declare. The personal pronoun, as well as suggesting a unity of their characters, a one-voice, may not just be a chilling reference to the band members. The declaration could very well be a reflection on humanity in its entirety. Aren’t we all reliant so much on our technology, so much so that we are giving power to the technology over us?

If, hypothetically, there was a universal and eternal power-cut which rendered our devices useless to us, how useless would we be as a result? I think that Kraftwerk’s declaration puts mankind akin to the devices they use, a very 21^st-century ideal in a late-20^th century world, still increasing in the power of their technology. They didn’t have all the computing power we have. They didn’t have smart-phones and tablets; they didn’t have the internet as we understand it today. Even then, Kraftwerk could appreciate the domination of technology, a pure, overpowering force which renders us a part of it. A question rises from this idea, asking why it is that man is so dependent on its technology. The lyrics to the song do address this; technology is inevitably described as so efficient, this overlap is understandable. “Automatic” and “mechanic” serve as useful adjectives in this context, suggestive of the efficient independence of computers that don’t need anybody to run them any more. Of course, this independence is worrying, since it also suggests the potential for technology to reach the same ability as us, even being able to make us reliant on it. Despite this, there are some positive connotations of happiness and enjoyment associated with this because of the dynamic verb “dancing”, but this could easily be used in a mocking, ironic or sarcastic way.

It’s suggested that the situation is almost getting to a point where machine is actually overtaking man. The phrases (said in Russian) “I’m your slave” and “I’m your worker” would originally be suggestive of the technology being reliant on us. However, if the actual identity of the narrator is confused and if the ‘robot’ is so independent, it could very well be the other way around; we are chained to our technology and society, which, even then, wouldn't be able to run as it was without computers. When Kraftwerk sing that they, as ‘robots’, can do “anything you [the listener] want us to,” there is an effectively-used indefinite pronoun present which seems to suggest infinite capabilities on the technology’s behalf. Despite this programming which suggests that technology must do what mankind asks, the aforementioned idea that man is growing reliant on technology and the possibility that man is now enslaved to technology could point to the idea that it is man which bows to its own creation’s need, not the other way around. If my suggestion of the possibility is valid, it is almost tragic that mankind’s flaw, that being the want to make life easier for itself, has caused for its creation, created to fulfill this want, to become overpowering. ‘The Man-Machine’, as a song, suggests this overlap between man and machine as well, if the hyphenated word itself, constantly repeated, doesn’t make it obvious. There is a slight oxymoronic idea in the song that the ‘man-machine’ can be both “pseudo human” and “super human” at the same time. These pre-modifications suggest that technology can be an insufficient copy of mankind as well as a superior version of mankind at the same time. This more clearly explores the idea that technology is outracing mankind and, despite being a product of mankind and arguably an imitation as a result, is now growing superior to mankind. Many science-fiction movies have definitely explored this idea, from ‘Terminator’ to ‘The Matrix’.

The two other songs in the album that contain lyrics approach the matter from different perspectives. ‘Neon Lights’ uses the metaphor of the city that’s “made of light”. Light normally has positive connotations, considering the spiritual perspectives on light that have existed for years and considering our dependence on light. This metaphor talks about these neon lights, then, in positive terms, since the city mentioned is literally glowing with this light. All is visible, all is clear, all is bright… all is light. The song seems upbeat and cheerful as far as I can tell, so this supports the positivity of the song. The verb “shimmering” seems to give a perspective of the beauty of these neon lights. This shows a more positive light (excuse the awful pun) on technology, since these lights are illuminating everything. There could be a more sinister undertone to this, however, since, if the city consists entirely of light, then this light could be described as a dominating force that is seeping into essentially every aspect of this city’s life. This could be negative, since having technology present in every aspect and being so reliant on it could be a bad thing if the technology goes wrong.

‘The Model’, on the other hand, doesn't directly deal with technology per-se, but discusses industry a little more; there is a link, however, because of the closeness between industry and technology. There is a consensus of appearance in this song, since this model is “looking good”. Hypocrisy is suggested in industry, since this model will “change her mind” in the face of a camera. There is a constant concern with the way she looks prevalent, as opposed to any concern for her thoughts, ideas or reality. She’s willing to change this in the face of other things. There is a metaphor of industry as a “game” here. This seems to contradict the idea that there’s anything genuine about it, and it is indeed something that has to be approached tactfully. Her success is more important than anything else, and only because of the pre-modified noun phrase “big success” does the singer “want to meet her again”; his interest, demonstrated by the stative verb, only results from her status, not her as a person. I’m not sure what she symbolises, although she definitely symbolises something; this could be industry/consumerism as a whole, its hypocrisy or particular people within industry. This has little to do with other technological ideas, but it does add a cynical view if the industry/consumerism and its culture which results from technology.

I could be entirely wrong in this matter. Perhaps everything I’ve suggested is completely irrelevant to what the songs are trying to communicate and I’m only flogging a dead horse, so to speak. Perhaps the song ‘The Robot’ was only supposed to be a playful reference to the popular idea of a robot. Perhaps the songs were only supposed to be a play on the technological nature of Kraftwerk’s careers; perhaps I may even be wrong in this matter also. However, this all boils down to perceptions; what I’m sharing here are only my perceptions of what the songs might actually be trying to say. I mentioned this in my previous blog entry also in regards to my perception of Gollum as a representation of sin’s effect on mankind. There is a question as to whether or not there’s such a thing as a correct interpretation of something. Unless the desired meaning and effect has already been discussed by the writer/singer(s), is there really any way of coming up with something that is certainly and unarguably accurate? I’m still a young person and my perceptions may not be as informed as somebody older. However, I can still perceive and analyse things; different people will perceive different works differently, and this idea is rather universal. For example, Chaucer’s intentions and his allegory is something which seems to be debated consistently, and even his address regarding what he said in ‘The Canterbury Tales’ is perceived differently. Some say that he was very seriously apologising for the outlandish things in the tales, whilst others say that this itself was in jest and a mockery of those who criticised his work.

Daft Punk, despite coming later than Kraftwerk, handled similar ideas. ‘Technologic’ consists of dynamic verbs, most of which are associated with technology in some way, apart from the dynamic verb “touch” and the occasional utterance of the adjective “technologic”. This idea of consistent and constant movement, repeated again and again, like the tempo of some of Kraftwerk’s songs, is also reflective of industrial automation. It’s a consistent cycle. It could easily be a further reflection on the nature of our industry; that is, our industry is reliant on technological development and the processes associated in order to produce what it needs. We again return to the idea of how truly dependent on its machines man is.  Each sentence is an imperative, almost telling the listener to do these things. It’s like a commanding form of brainwashing here that’s consistently pushing these thoughts into our minds in a swirl of ideas and sounds which are notably, well, technological. There is a crushing and overpowering feeling that this technological development is dominating. The small robot in the video could be a representation of a child in today’s context who has these ideas hammered into it, almost to a point where it is becoming a robot, reliant on technology, itself. I could be completely wrong here, but it’s a possibility.

This idea of repetition and being able to progress through an “upgrade”, as well as the commanding tone of the song, could mean that our lives are being dictated by these technological advances. If these machines are so consistently and powerfully efficient, we seem to be slaves to them, doing what is required for them, letting them command us like so many of the commands in the song. Our routines are now the computer’s routines. We’ve let our own creation seep into our daily lives so deeply, it’s completely dominated all that we do. It’s the same idea in Kraftwerk’s work; that is, the idea of technology surpassing humanity, despite coming from humanity, seems to be shared by the songs. Even though the cold, hard logic of computing is made evident, it seems a tad ironic that all the work of one cycle only leads to another cycle of the same work. It seems almost futile, like the technology is destined to only ever start again to do the same things more efficiently.

Returning to the dynamic verb “touch”, this one verb, in comparison with all of the others that have more to do with technological processes, could be significant. Computers generally aren’t necessarily capable of touching anything. A more accurate way of saying this may be that computers can’t touch anything whilst feeling and understanding it, something which has connotations with a human’s idea of touch. I say this whilst keeping in mind that some robotic devices are capable of moving and holding things, whilst also being able to feel its temperature and maybe its texture using sensors. This doesn’t have to be the same as the way a human touches. However, there may be a suggestion here that, if computers become capable of touching, truly touching, then what else will they become capable of? There may be a suggestion that machines are on the way to, and will eventually gain a human ability. This idea of a computer reaching the same point as a human could be reflected in the Daft Punk song ‘Human After All’, from the album of the same name which also contains ‘Technologic’. What will soon make us any better?

Whilst not being directly connected to Kraftwerk or Daft Punk in any way, this idea of technology growing more powerful than mankind reminds me of that which is explored in the novel ‘Frankenstein’ by Mary Shelley. Victor Frankenstein, very much like a lot of men, even in today’s society, was fascinated by certain aspects of science and the technology which would make scientific progressions possible, particularly surrounding electricity and its potential. It was this fascination, even growing to a point of obsession, which led to the creation of the monster, which, in the context of Kraftwerk’s potential point, seems to embody the negative results of technological/scientific development.

This monster completely destroyed Victor in every way possible by targeting the things he loved. In this way, his creation turned against him and bent him to its will, degrading him to something that had the sole purpose of revenge. It’s a story of incredible irony and tragedy. Victor, blinded by his vision of development and potential, created something which was his own end. In this way, Victor was the cause of his own demise. His fatal flaw, in this sense, was his curiosity. He was the one who fell victim to that he made with his own hands. This could be a reflection of our creation in today’s context, that being our technology. Aren’t we growing dependent on technology to the point of being degraded by it, almost as if we are the ones that are bending to its will? Although this is different to the exact context of ‘Frankenstein’, since Frankenstein was in no way reliant on his monster, it’s a similar idea in essence. This is because our own creation could very well be our demise, perhaps through its failure, its misuse or some other way. In our vision of the future, like Victor Frankenstein’s, we’ve reached a particular level of advancement which we rely on, and, as a result, puts us in a precarious position. If it develops any further, there is a possibility of it being a more literal recreation of ‘Frankenstein’!

The Industrial Revolution, one of the greatest periods of technological development, was something that was discussed by the Romantics in their works. This is relevant, considering that ‘Frankenstein’ is seen as a Romantic work and that its author was married to Percy Shelley, a writer renowned for his Romantic poetry. The Romantics are known for their attitudes towards the Industrial Revolution. So, in this representation of what technological development can do to mankind, certain negative reflections of what the Industrial Revolution was doing to agriculture through the strengthening of industry could be shining through. There was this idea of technology destroying the natural landscape and the thriving agriculture, very beautiful things in humanity’s eyes. Was agriculture at that level becoming needless? Considering what I’ve previously mentioned, this could be a reflection of how technology could easily destroy us if our existence becomes needless to it.

This may be something of more symbolic value, as opposed to literal value. After all, technology still ultimately depends on us to run it in 2013. But, if technology is becoming more automatic and independent, if robots as popular culture perceives them are becoming more of a reality, for how long will this last? At what point will machines begin to think things through for themselves? Hal 9000 in ‘A Space Odyssey’ seemed to be a suggestion of technology overpowering mankind with its cold, crushing will. We may be closer than ever to reaching this point, and it could be dangerous when we do. At the moment, however, we are enslaved to technology symbolically, not literally, as I’ve previously said; without technology, our society would probably be damaged.

In closing, when I write something like this and read over it again, it reads like I’m condemning technology and scientific development. I just want to clarify that this is not the case. I think technology is brilliant and I think it’s become an important and intrinsic part of our society. The only reason I’m saying what I’m saying about it is because I’m just sharing my observations of what others are saying and giving my perception of what I think they might mean by their words. Kraftwerk could have been thinking of it; Daft Punk could have been thinking of it; Mary Shelley could have been thinking of it; I am simply here, suggesting it.