Ever since the humble beginnings, a lot of praise, but also a lot of criticism has been thrown at our very magazine.
This was to be expected. So let's address some of these.
"All articles are written by AI" - Au contraire (or 'AI contrAIre'?) ! Since a year or so, all articles that have been aided by AI get a disclaimer added to them - and they are few indeed (maybe two or three a year).
Personally, I don't have anything against AI. But in my humble opinion, "the technology is not ripe yet". All obviously-100% AI articles I read so far were of lacking quality.
"All articles were written by one person!" - not quite right, indeed. In the 2 years of our existence, several dozen people have written stuff for us. And we hope to expand even more (hint: contact us if you are an author.)
"The magazine is about self-gain!" Ain't right as well. There is no money interest or gain involved. Yes, we are tied into the U.M.A.N. group, and post stuff from associated projects and labels, too, but there is no money incentive either, and, honestly, we do that because these projects are about pushing the oldschool sound and its boundaries, too.
"You think you people know it all right and everyone else got it wrong (about hardcore music)".
and
"You people are writing your *own* history of Hardcore"
This is a very interesting type of criticism. Because it digs to the very root of our magazine, or - our mission.
So let's start from the beginning.
The term "overdogs" is a play on the word "underdog". Specifically, we are about the underdogs. We are for the underdogs. We want to push the underdogs. All the forgotten tracks, artists, labels, releases, movements, *politics*... of Hardcore Techno.
The "underdog" is a bit stretched in some articles. the magazine did cover a few famous projects, labels... but even then, we cover the lesser-known aspects or under-rated releases of these.
That means we want to focus explicitly on the stories, news, and history that others do or did not write about yet.
Indeed an "alternative history of hardcore techno"; but a very real, factual one.
This has not to be separate to the "official" version of history; in truth, often there will be clashes in the sense of - "are there hidden / unexplored facts to an artist, festival, era, that you / me / we do not know about yet?"
We do not *want to* rewrite hardcore history - we think there is a *need to* rewrite the history of hardcore. this task must not be done by us, but essentially by everyone who is involved in, or a fan, of this sound.
To slightly change a famous Star Wars quote: "We do not want to be right - we just want you *to be wrong*".
Because, come on, the "official" history of hardcore cannot be correct - or could it?
This goes for us, too, of course. If other eager explorers begin to write and research hardcore, too, then a lot of our articles will be obsolete, and we will be happy about that.
And, note: deep research of a music genre does not mean repeating stuff that others said on the internet.
Because the opinion of a majority is almost in all cases incorrect.
And this leads us to another final point.
There was one form of criticism i did not expect, and that one really hit hard. Which was criticism along the lines of
"The artists / labels / projects you write about must be un-interesting and dull". because "if they were good artists, then they would have been successful and famous too. if they had talent, the majority would know about these. if they have been largely forgotten, then this happened deservedly so."
in all honesty, can you really think such things? that if an artist fades into obscurity, there must be a good reason for it?
do you think famous musicians are *deserving* of the spotlight, the happiness, the appreciation that gets showered on them - and the others would not be deserving of it?
it pains me, because I think this goes beyond hardcore and music. because people have similar sentiments regarding other social or cultural outcasts, too.
do you think that a loser is a loser because they deserve it, and not because they were thrown into the pit - by the "dumb majority" who were not able to understand them, because, well, they are too dumb for that?
well, we don't think so.
going back to hardcore, we think there were, and there are, many people involved in hardcore of the 90s and today, who would have deserved all the fame, respect, (maybe even money), and well-being in the world.
so let's right this wrong, and at least give it to them now, alright?
because you should always be there for the underdogs.
and this brings us to our "second final" word:
not all these comments are made in spite, because information about hardcore scene and its history are *really hard to come by*
and this then brings us to the secondary aspect of our mission:
to point out there is still a lot to research and discover regarding hardcore techno, and that there is still a lot more music out there, too!
This was to be expected. So let's address some of these.
"All articles are written by AI" - Au contraire (or 'AI contrAIre'?) ! Since a year or so, all articles that have been aided by AI get a disclaimer added to them - and they are few indeed (maybe two or three a year).
Personally, I don't have anything against AI. But in my humble opinion, "the technology is not ripe yet". All obviously-100% AI articles I read so far were of lacking quality.
"All articles were written by one person!" - not quite right, indeed. In the 2 years of our existence, several dozen people have written stuff for us. And we hope to expand even more (hint: contact us if you are an author.)
"The magazine is about self-gain!" Ain't right as well. There is no money interest or gain involved. Yes, we are tied into the U.M.A.N. group, and post stuff from associated projects and labels, too, but there is no money incentive either, and, honestly, we do that because these projects are about pushing the oldschool sound and its boundaries, too.
"You think you people know it all right and everyone else got it wrong (about hardcore music)".
and
"You people are writing your *own* history of Hardcore"
This is a very interesting type of criticism. Because it digs to the very root of our magazine, or - our mission.
So let's start from the beginning.
The term "overdogs" is a play on the word "underdog". Specifically, we are about the underdogs. We are for the underdogs. We want to push the underdogs. All the forgotten tracks, artists, labels, releases, movements, *politics*... of Hardcore Techno.
The "underdog" is a bit stretched in some articles. the magazine did cover a few famous projects, labels... but even then, we cover the lesser-known aspects or under-rated releases of these.
That means we want to focus explicitly on the stories, news, and history that others do or did not write about yet.
Indeed an "alternative history of hardcore techno"; but a very real, factual one.
This has not to be separate to the "official" version of history; in truth, often there will be clashes in the sense of - "are there hidden / unexplored facts to an artist, festival, era, that you / me / we do not know about yet?"
We do not *want to* rewrite hardcore history - we think there is a *need to* rewrite the history of hardcore. this task must not be done by us, but essentially by everyone who is involved in, or a fan, of this sound.
To slightly change a famous Star Wars quote: "We do not want to be right - we just want you *to be wrong*".
Because, come on, the "official" history of hardcore cannot be correct - or could it?
This goes for us, too, of course. If other eager explorers begin to write and research hardcore, too, then a lot of our articles will be obsolete, and we will be happy about that.
And, note: deep research of a music genre does not mean repeating stuff that others said on the internet.
Because the opinion of a majority is almost in all cases incorrect.
And this leads us to another final point.
There was one form of criticism i did not expect, and that one really hit hard. Which was criticism along the lines of
"The artists / labels / projects you write about must be un-interesting and dull". because "if they were good artists, then they would have been successful and famous too. if they had talent, the majority would know about these. if they have been largely forgotten, then this happened deservedly so."
in all honesty, can you really think such things? that if an artist fades into obscurity, there must be a good reason for it?
do you think famous musicians are *deserving* of the spotlight, the happiness, the appreciation that gets showered on them - and the others would not be deserving of it?
it pains me, because I think this goes beyond hardcore and music. because people have similar sentiments regarding other social or cultural outcasts, too.
do you think that a loser is a loser because they deserve it, and not because they were thrown into the pit - by the "dumb majority" who were not able to understand them, because, well, they are too dumb for that?
well, we don't think so.
going back to hardcore, we think there were, and there are, many people involved in hardcore of the 90s and today, who would have deserved all the fame, respect, (maybe even money), and well-being in the world.
so let's right this wrong, and at least give it to them now, alright?
because you should always be there for the underdogs.
and this brings us to our "second final" word:
not all these comments are made in spite, because information about hardcore scene and its history are *really hard to come by*
and this then brings us to the secondary aspect of our mission:
to point out there is still a lot to research and discover regarding hardcore techno, and that there is still a lot more music out there, too!
