I’m unsure Rammstein’s intentions were to memorialize the event in the light you propose. The band is after all part (and greatest example) of the Neue Deutsche Härte, which has as a big part of its identity to break taboos and singing about shocking topics in very graphic ways. It’s just shock value, and one they’ve been very famous for until they began toning it down in later years with more recent releases, following the tendency of what is or not acceptable even outside the mainstream morality.
You’ve clearly got a strong opinion on them, and I don’t expect to change it. But I do want to point out that most of the aspersions you cast on them are based on subjectively interpreting their intentions as cynical.
We can disagree about their intentions until the heat death of the universe. Their material effect remains the same.
I have made my labor of citing sources for my claims, so while my interpretations of certain facts are indeed cynical (why would a communist not navigate with cynicism bourgeois society and the media arising from it?), the facts behind them are not deniable. Per example: Rammstein has made use of nazi imagery by using footage from the same director that filmed “Triumph of the Will”, and that is true no matter how you look at it. If you think that they were justified on it, then that is a different topic.
This being said, I invite you to think: would you agree to find these actions justifiable if they did not have the Rammstein brand over them, coming instead from a more modern band?
If using Leni Riefenstahl’s footage is condemnable, are you also going to condemn them for wearing nazi uniforms in their videos, as well as everyone else who’s been involved in a film that uses nazi imagery?
Obviously there’s contextual nuance involved, and you’re steamrolling over it with that question. You haven’t even mentioned the context in which Riefenstahl’s footage was used.
The irony is that people who defend Triumph Of The Will say that it should be judged separate from the political context in which it was created.
I’m unsure Rammstein’s intentions were to memorialize the event in the light you propose. The band is after all part (and greatest example) of the Neue Deutsche Härte, which has as a big part of its identity to break taboos and singing about shocking topics in very graphic ways. It’s just shock value, and one they’ve been very famous for until they began toning it down in later years with more recent releases, following the tendency of what is or not acceptable even outside the mainstream morality.
You’ve clearly got a strong opinion on them, and I don’t expect to change it. But I do want to point out that most of the aspersions you cast on them are based on subjectively interpreting their intentions as cynical.
We can disagree about their intentions until the heat death of the universe. Their material effect remains the same.
I have made my labor of citing sources for my claims, so while my interpretations of certain facts are indeed cynical (why would a communist not navigate with cynicism bourgeois society and the media arising from it?), the facts behind them are not deniable. Per example: Rammstein has made use of nazi imagery by using footage from the same director that filmed “Triumph of the Will”, and that is true no matter how you look at it. If you think that they were justified on it, then that is a different topic. This being said, I invite you to think: would you agree to find these actions justifiable if they did not have the Rammstein brand over them, coming instead from a more modern band?
If using Leni Riefenstahl’s footage is condemnable, are you also going to condemn them for wearing nazi uniforms in their videos, as well as everyone else who’s been involved in a film that uses nazi imagery?
Obviously there’s contextual nuance involved, and you’re steamrolling over it with that question. You haven’t even mentioned the context in which Riefenstahl’s footage was used.
The irony is that people who defend Triumph Of The Will say that it should be judged separate from the political context in which it was created.
There’s no need to dig that deep into it. Till Lindemann himself recognised it was a provocation that they took too far.