Markus Popp – Emotions Broken and Reassembled by Mistake

A champion of an electronic revolution that, from 1991 onward, ferried listeners straight into a future not yet fully realized, German artist Markus Popp, born in 1968, has carved out a rich musical journey guided by the lodestar of intentional error; the sabotage of the physical CD format he began alongside friends Sebastian Oschatz and Frank Metzger under the moniker Oval laid the groundwork for all the glitch music to come, and then some. Oval's decomposed and reassembled architectures carry a high emotional charge, setting themselves apart from that experimentation-for-its-own-sake praised by specialist critics yet incapable of stirring anything in the listener beyond mere admiration.
And then there are the crepuscular miniatures to rediscover, released as a duo with Mouse on Mars's Jan St. Werner under the name Microstoria, as well as the gem sung by Japanese vocalist Eriko Toyoda, "So", right through to the art-pop collection by Gastr del Sol, "Camoufleur". Even Björk, in the new millennium, paid tribute to Popp's genius by sampling a segment of the track "Aero Deck" for the lab-intimate "Unison" on the album "Vespertine".
Digital aesthetics bent to the ingenuity of a joyfully artisanal sabotage – first through electronic sounds, then opening up to the acoustic realm from 2010 onward – have given Oval a mysterious, instantly recognizable style, a way of understanding the sound object and composition that Popp himself painstakingly recounts in the long interview that follows.

Markus, I'd like to start by clearing up the term "glitch". In your view, who were the first composers to define this subgenre?
Let's first unpack this lofty, meaning-laden word: "composer". This term conjures up a kind of cathedral in our minds, whereas in the case of the Oval project it was actually more of a fairly chaotic workshop. When Oval started out, we had no intention of pursuing academic projects or trying to build monuments in silicon. It was about laying bare a visceral, almost desperate friction with consumer electronics that hadn't been designed to meet our needs.

Which composers would you name?
Hmm… maybe this little anecdote says it all: one evening, Sebastian, Frank and I found ourselves at a Nicolas Collins concert in Berlin. It was right after the release of "Wohnton". We watched his performance, in which he sang while accompanying himself with skipping CD players. We looked at each other and said: "Oh, ok". His performance was lyrical, gloriously disruptive, but it also felt like an anti-artistic gesture comfortably contained within an artistic space, whereas Oval had something else in mind. We were searching for a new, DIY narrative, but also for something more intimate and personal, and more modest, than anything the music industry of the time could have offered us. For us, the emotion never lay in the sabotage of the mechanism itself, but in that strange, fragile, endlessly new and mysterious self-generated poetry that emerged when a skipping laser was coaxed into telling a linear story according to an emotional language. The romanticism of stammering, if you like. Turning a digital error into a form of mysterious, semi-controllable poetry. An ever-evolving reconfiguration of songwriting.

Was this new aesthetic already present in embryonic form on your 1991 debut, “Oktober 91”?
There seems to be a peculiar, almost voyeuristic fascination in the way these little-known archival ghosts, never originally intended for release, keep resurfacing among collectors and die-hard fans. Tapes like “Oktober 91” and “Kolor” are often wrapped in a generous, mythologizing haze of nostalgia by people looking for a pristine, still-to-be-uncovered origin story. It makes me smile, but it's also a bit embarrassing. These cassettes were data fragments that somehow slipped through the cracks of a now-crumbling, prehistoric digital era. Musically speaking, they belong to a naive archaeology, completely pre-glitch, almost pre-everything. The sampling on those tracks was conventional, quaint, amateurish and frankly clumsy. We were charting paths through a landscape whose rules nobody had even begun to question yet. There was none of the refinement of glitch, nor any conceptual foothold. Just students on a shoestring budget trying to coax "real music" out of mid-to-low-tier gear. A necessary step? Yes. Can we call them "canonical" documents? Absolutely not.

After “Wohnton” you moved away from the song format in favor of instrumental soundscapes. Why?
That question touches on a classic, wonderfully persistent misunderstanding that has cast a shadow over Oval for decades. Oval never turned its back on the song format. In fact, in the diagram attached to one of our demos from August 1993, the founding axiom explicitly stated: "The song as a functioning format for music." We didn't abandon songwriting; we simply chose to free it from the monopoly of some of its traditional elements and from linear hierarchies. Because a song doesn't need a traditional band lineup to break your heart, does it? What a song actually requires is a crafted sound that unfolds over time along a timeline. And it also needs plenty of heart, soul and emotion. That's it. That realization changed everything.

Let me put it this way: what changed after “Wohnton”?
"Wohnton" marked the point where our sound structure achieved maturity within a context of total purity. It was certainly not a retreat into the sterile safety of abstract instrumental forms. The album was a deeply human fragment of a transitional era. But of course, compared to the austere density unleashed on the following "Systemisch", it sounds like preparatory work. The song format, however, always remained intact; it simply learned to breathe through deliberately forced errors and the organization of the data derived from them.

Can you explain, in terms a layperson could understand, how Oval used error as a compositional tool?
The process behind the early soundscapes was a tight, yet at the same time slightly bizarre, combination of conceptual abstraction and incredibly tedious, laborious work. It was the absolute antithesis of today's fluid, polished, software-driven audio workflow. In practice, we'd burst into the CD shop around the corner and come home with stacks of the most generic new age and '70s synthesizer CDs we could find. The less "happened" in the original audio, the more room there was for our intervention. We'd sit in our tiny Berlin flat, grab felt-tip pens (non-permanent, obviously) and draw intricate, delicate geometric patterns directly onto the glossy surfaces of the discs. We were essentially hijacking the CD player's purpose, steering it into uncharted territory. And that meant endless hours spent gently tapping on the plastic casing of a perfectly ordinary Sony CD player, coaxing the laser into a state of glorious irregularity. When the machine finally stumbled onto a hypnotic, semi-usable rhythm, we'd capture that fragment within the precious 51 seconds of sampling time my Yamaha TX16W sampler allowed. Every snippet obtained this way was then logged on index cards kept in a dedicated cardboard box, which I still have. To me, it's a catalog of... ghosts.

What did the insight of sabotage represent for you?
The process of turning an almost accidental disruption into an almost intentional beauty was many things at once: wonder, discovery, surprise, hard work, a school of listening, and also a wonderful period.

With Oschatz and Metzger's departure, what was lost and what was gained in Oval?
There's a common, somewhat sentimental view that sees the trio's breakup after "94 Diskont" as the tragic loss of a collective soul. I see it from a completely different perspective. What was lost was the safe, cozy refuge of what was nonetheless an incredibly stimulating camaraderie. But we also lost a lot of student-style discussions, crammed around a single tiny monochrome Atari SM124 monitor; a phase had naturally run its course and, at a certain point, had exhausted its own conversational parameters. What was gained was a radical, exhilarating leap into creative autonomy. Becoming a solo project allowed Oval to shed its remaining compromises and step into a far more uncompromising architecture — a liberation of method. It let me transform Oval from a meta-commentary into a trajectory that claimed a space in the real world. That friction-free solitude was exactly the crucible needed to finally collapse the old glitch paradigms and reboot the system, giving rise to the interactive sound objects of "Ovalprocess" (album + software), but also to film soundtracks, video game music, collaborations with the world of dance, the crystalline songwriting of "O", the frenetic commentary on club culture of "Popp", and so on. You have to wipe the timeline clean in order to rewrite the operating system.

What's the main restriction you impose on yourself when composing?
Ahhh, the romanticizing of the early digital era's limitations! My favorite memory in this regard remains formatting hundreds of 720kb floppy disks for a 12-bit sampler back in 1991. I can assure you that sampler was the very embodiment of the concept of limitation: total sample memory was 51 seconds. In mono, no less. Plus, there was plenty of time to reflect while programming the arcane system architecture nested inside the sampler, until every key had been assigned to trigger the tiny sample fragment of your choosing. Restrictions are a moving target and, it turns out, my permanent ally. For "O", back in 2010, for instance, I set a strict regime of a maximum of six elements per track. Main theme (guitar), bass, two atmospheric elements, one effect, and drums. If a sound didn't fit, I wouldn't fix it with effects — I'd simply re-record the track live. Rapid prototyping on a cheap Windows PC.... now those were the days! Fast decisions were required and there was no safety net. And that last condition, for me, is absolutely a good thing.

In digital production everything tends to fill up the spectrum; how do you decide which frequencies deserve the "right to silence", and what role does silence play in your compositions?
Digital audio workstations hate emptiness by their very nature. The interface treats an unassigned bar or an empty track as an omission, a hole waiting to be filled by the infinite computational abundance at hand. It's a psychological trap. After the suffocating, hyper-layered arrangements of 2004's "So", where up to thirty channels were constantly competing for frequency space, I had to learn to cut material out. Silence in electronic music isn't a decorative choice. It's a tactical intervention. Deleting a file is a creative act. "Touch a file only once": that was the Oval dream from the very beginning. The modern professional audio market pushes you to coat everything in an artificial sheen, turning the spectrum into a dense, over-produced wall. The right to silence means expulsion, and it's the discipline needed to keep the grid open. Today, using stable software settings that don't crash is the modern equivalent of the notes you choose not to play. It's about deciding how much of the digital architecture you leave intact and how much you let dissolve into the background. The issue is simple: tracks need to breathe.

No connection between the sabotage Milan Knížák inflicted on vinyl records and the one you inflicted on CDs?
The link seems obvious at first glance, but I think the intentions diverged. Knížák's work with broken records was the typical anti-art, aggressive gesture meant to be hung on a gallery wall. Oval has never had anything to do with destruction or negation. Or, more precisely, what Oval wanted to demonstrate was that in electronic music, negation and affirmation are bound to merge into a single concept: that's what "Systemisch" was meant to express — if you set out to destroy a system, you only end up optimizing it, there's no way around it. On the contrary, Oval was about making (self-proclaimed) pop songs, neatly laid out left to right in a linear software sequencer. It was about creating intentional beauty out of forced accidents. Oval wasn't a punk-style revolt but rather the construction of a detailed puzzle designed specifically so that it could never be put back together correctly. Oval also meant realizing that "the whole" was an outdated fiction, a closed paradigm. Assembling the fragments of a fragile yet plausible architecture and turning them into beautiful music was, for me, more than enough.

In a world of infinite libraries, how do you set your own finite "palette" to avoid choice overload?
Right. The contemporary professional audio technology market is a giant "attractor" designed to sell you an abundance of creative possibilities that very quickly translate into choice paralysis. You're handed decades of academic audio research and development right on your desktop, right at your fingertips, and yet, in most people's hands, it always leads to the same old music. In fact, I've never built a custom VST preset library before recording. I build the track with whatever resources are available at that precise moment. For me, any new technology or product just means more work, not a playground. It's the classic duality between digital opportunity and infinite noise. Either you learn to navigate the grid, or you become a more or less willing beta tester.

If the essence of your music lies in the "here and now", isn't recording a performance like creating the corpse of an event that was meant to be unique?
That sounds like a wonderfully morbid idea lifted from some late-20th-century Media Theory treatise. You could also look at it this way: a recorded track isn't a corpse, but a Polaroid of pure momentum — nothing more, nothing less. Sometimes I find it useful to think about perfumes: both sound waves and scent molecules inevitably evaporate into nothing, wrapping the world in an atmospheric glow. And yet an unforgettable magic hides right there. In more pragmatic musical terms, the recording is simply the basic byproduct of that evaporation. In practical terms, Oval tracks have always been handcrafted stop-motion animations. They were far less high-tech than they might seem from a traditional musical perspective. We built them out of thoroughly unlikely building blocks. The rest was simply wanting that music to come alive, regardless of whether or not I had the necessary musical skills. By the way, arranging musical fragments along a linear timeline doesn't kill uniqueness. You could even argue that uniqueness is created exactly this way, because that's how it manifests itself: laying fragments out on a timeline anchors the fiction, but ultimately it's the moments of surprise that make everything take flight. Every time one of those musical surprise moments I'd just created smiled back at me, I knew I'd done something right.

While performing a set, do you feel like you're in the "driver's seat", or is it the technology's response that shapes your subsequent decisions?
The "driver's seat" metaphor suits a German autobahn better than a screen, especially if it's the small screen of a laptop. Performing within a complex software-based architecture has less to do with driving a vehicle and more to do with a continuous, high-frequency decision-making process, especially when you set up a "live" environment to include genuinely real-time elements, as I do. Preparing a live set means configuring a generative system: a reactive matrix of interconnected modules processing data in real time. So, technically speaking, that kind of live set is a self-dynamic environment. At that point, the artist steps in to explore its possibilities. I don't wait for a synthesizer's response to trigger some emotional epiphany. That would be, at best, a romantic hand gesture. My role, instead, constantly shifts between that of an art director and that of a strategic editor. You set guidelines, but you also leave room for controlled deviations, organic evolution, and a calculated margin of improvisation. And then you step in again. It's a game of continuously making choices. The gear, though, doesn't dictate my feelings — if anything, it tests my reflexes.

If in 20 years the software and hardware you use today no longer existed, would you consider your work dead and buried, or do you think your creative output could survive outside the silicon it was born in?
The impermanence of software is part of the deal we signed up for the moment we went fully digital. If the specific code and hardware setups I use today were to vanish two decades from now, it wouldn't be a problem at all. My body of work isn't a museum piece tied to a specific software patch or a vintage microchip. My setup has gone through so many changes over time! I mean, even if you just sit there doing nothing, software changes everything around it, simply by virtue of its dynamic nature. Oval has always centered on an approach, a distinctive sonic identity, a specific way of treating music as matter. That logic easily transcends platforms, while my vision of music and the role it plays in my life won't change. For instance, the Ovalprocess interactive terminals now sit in a warehouse, completely out of use, and yet the underlying procedural outlook remains perfectly alive. Digital files fade away. Methodologies don't. If the silicon dies, you simply map your inner logic and your approach onto the next computational interface. Hardware and software come and go, but the hardest part to replicate is the artist's attitude.

Suppose AI allowed any random kid to produce tracks that perfectly simulate your improvisational quirks and your favorite errors: would you end up feeling unnecessary?
Aside from the fact that perfectly simulating an accidental error seems like a contradiction in terms, AI as we know it today can effortlessly mimic the surface texture of a mistake, the visual cue of a glitch, or the formal patterns of a performative oddity, but it completely misses the point of why we create in the first place. The current cultural landscape is drowning in algorithmically generated content — flawless (or even "deliberately imperfect", if you like) yet utterly devoid of personality. My process will forever remain introspective, self-referential, illogical, idiosyncratic and... deeply human. I would never delegate it to a machine. What for? To save time? Never. I need to feel my entire life pouring into my music, every single day. Automating the creative act to save effort strikes me as a shortcut of little value. If AI makes human output redundant in a market driven purely by quantifiable metrics, well, that only makes the stubborn act of human creation all the more urgent. Don't worry, I'm not going anywhere.

From a technical standpoint, what does Markus Popp use to produce his music these days?
Japanese keyboard magazines always used to ask me for a gear list; somehow they expected me to point to some "secret weapon" plugin (preferably one I'd coded myself) or some exotic boutique hardware that would magically explain my sound. The far less glamorous truth is that my setup is entirely standard, screen-based, fully virtual and software-driven — aside from the controller hardware, of course. I use a wide range of virtual instruments (more samplers than synths) and plugins, plus a fairly extensive sample archive. In the end, though, the answer to your gear question is much simpler: imagination! I use imagination to make music. Also, for every project (though not necessarily for what ends up being released), I set up a customized environment that supports fast decision-making: it's my only shot, otherwise nothing would ever get finished. Apart from that, I don't use modular synths: no fetish for retro gear, no custom-built pieces. I try to make music with whatever resources I feel comfortable with. Gear can easily become an end in itself and generate a lot of unnecessary work, so I find it important to put myself first and the gear second.

How do you know when a track is done and finished?
Great question. It's something I've grappled with, believe me. Let's put it this way: a piece of music is finished when it can survive its own disintegration. My sessions usually start out as a huge collection, completely heterogeneous, of disparate material and fluctuating parameters spanning instruments and effects. More often than not, this chaos leads to a phase where I feel much closer to the sense that everything has gone to hell than to any aesthetic victory. But that's exactly the turning point: when I try to flip the situation around by throwing myself into a genuine tour de force, forcing whatever's coming through the headphones to reach a state of... plausibility. The piece is finished when it stops being a demonstration of technique or novelty, or a mere showcase of the creative process. A piece of music, however short or embryonic, has to stand on its own two feet. It simply has to exist without effort. When that material stops asking questions and starts speaking for itself, I smile, get up, and can finally allow myself a break.

The creative act is also tied to physical movement (think of a violinist): in the digital world, where movement is often reduced to a click, how do you feel complete without the mediation of the body?
I see what you mean. I don't think creative freedom has ever had anything to do with the physical movement of a body part; it's more about specific intent and tactical execution. Even a single mouse click can be extremely subversive—just think of hacking. Here's how the issue presents itself in my everyday experience: the screen is a space where you transcend, or see past, the physical laws and the preset constraints of the interface. I mean, every medium has its own internal laws, its limits, its time-wasters and its traps, but the artist can always choose to act and think subversively, with any means, using any tool. What matters most out there—to the listener, the critics, the world, posterity—is being perceived as subversive. If your strategy is well thought out, you can turn even the most conventional software container into a weapon. In this way artistic freedom becomes more than anything a tactic, and electronic music, in this sense, is the perfect testing ground.

What do you admire most about Jan St. Werner, your partner in Microstoria?
He has an incredibly refined and uncompromising musical sensibility, which has made our work together absolutely comfortable. Our collaboration was never driven by planning, let alone by considerations of market positioning or strategic maneuvering or branding; it was pure, genuine curiosity. What I admire most is his profound, instinct-driven capacity for listening: treating music, any music, not as an immutable monument, but as an open narrative full of possibilities. Microstoria's tracks came together almost magically because we were both willing to merge our individual voices into a shared, organic process. It was a collective exercise in sonic curiosity that used highly improbable building blocks without feeling the need to over-complicate or over-explain the structure—not even to ourselves. He understands that sound over time is an evolving current, a signature, not a product to be packaged. All this created a deep, implicit trust in an unconventional process that we made entirely our own.

I'm intrigued by the choice of the name “Microstoria”, which in Italian refers to a genre of history that focuses on small units of research, such as an event, a community or a settlement.
Spot on! I came across the term in a footnote of a text I read at university; it's a beautiful parallel to our music, and the choice of name was entirely intentional. We wanted to move away from the loud, sweeping meta-narratives of the '90s electronic music explosion, which felt increasingly inflated and commercialized to us. Microstoria, on the other hand, was a deep dive into microscopic narrative, focusing on the smallest possible acoustic units of research, elements the rest of the world might consider almost insignificant. We took tiny, disparate fragments, detached them from their musical origin story, and examined how they behaved once brought back together in a confined space. It was about creating localized, intense atmospheres that didn't rely on grandiose gestures or cinematic pathos. By isolating and emphasizing the minor details—the individual events hidden within the audio file—you configure an alternative timeline, an untold story overlooked by most people. It's history rewritten through the minutiae of a unique, DIY filing system. Microstoria is a story unto itself, one of a kind, told in a delicate, whispered tone.

Between “Invisible Architecture #3” from 2002 and the incredible “O” from 2010, there's an eight-year gap in your discography.
Welcome to my life! After having squeezed every conceivable possibility out of glitch and digital signal processing (not to mention the Ovalprocess software and the interactive installation objects, a huge undertaking in itself), I couldn't keep circling the ghost of (non-)authorship any longer. Early Oval's author-less glitch aesthetic had become an instantly recognizable cliché—mission accomplished, I suppose—and it was time to move on. So I took a step back so that, one day, I could confront music on its own terrain. Those eight years of silence were a period of inner reorganization, of experimentation, of learning from scratch a whole set of contemporary musical (and physical) skills. For the first time I wanted to enter into an authentic dialogue with music, to learn the real language of harmony, riffs and instrumentation, rather than simply dismembering sound fragments left behind by others. It takes a long time to learn to play virtual and real instruments with confidence and control without being a merely mediocre composer. In a way, I was building a whole new operating system from the ground up. When I finally returned with “O”, the album was practically a new debut work, starting from zero, full of ideas and with something specific to prove, concentrating maximum emotion into a dozen “vignettes”. Looking back on it now, I'd say that long silence was necessary groundwork that paid off.

As can be heard on a musical gem like the album “So” with Eriko Toyoda, your style is characterized, among other things, by a kind of wild sophistication. What does elegance mean to you?
I'd describe So's elegance as an inherent vagueness, expressed in a very discreet, indirect, and “Japanese” way. So's music could be called “elegant” to the extent that it was a deliberate choice to leave something to the imagination, rather than being obvious or easily understood. In postmodern audio production, everything is pushed to the foreground to immediately grab attention; true elegance rejects that kind of spectacle. It's a holistic vision that allows a piece to reflect its contemporary influences while ultimately transcending its individual components. On the 2004 self-titled album we had these incredibly dense, layered arrangements, made up of over 30 tracks, which I built starting from Eriko's songs, guided by an extremely delicate guitar, to which the singer's vocal presence added a tangible layer, albeit in a spectral, highly processed form. Elegance in that context also meant finding a fragile balance where systemic complexity didn't smother the soul of Eriko's songs. And solving a challenge like that with elegance might also mean turning the final result into something capable of leaving you with a pleasant aftertaste, even years after its release. Apparently, the album has passed that test.

This one's from Richard Buckminster Fuller: “Integrity is the essence of everything successful.” Are there exceptions?
Buckminster Fuller was operating within a completely different industrial paradigm than the one we have today. Nowadays, chasing an uncontaminated idea of success is a luxury reserved for those detached from reality. For the rest of us, sustaining any creative endeavor or keeping a creative voice relevant in this hyperconnected world is a two-fold operation: it's always 50% about shaping a breathtaking landmark to commemorate your own journey, and 50% about building the tourist attraction around it. Marketing can be seen as a modern-day corruption, but it's a limitation it shares with every other human endeavor. Now, is that a good thing? The real exception to Buckminster Fuller's aphorism is the deliberate, transparent enactment of this very contradiction: true integrity today doesn't mean hiding behind an intellectual facade or pretending the market doesn't shape your tools; it means showing exactly “how the sausage gets made,” while still managing to create an aesthetic experience that disarms the listener on an emotional level. Knowing and confidently internalizing this contradiction: that is the only real success there is today.

What don't you like about Germany in 2026?
I'll answer that by looking at Germany's current situation through a very specific filter. Literally. From my studio window in the bourgeois Berlin-Wilmersdorf neighborhood, the glass is in fact covered with a protective plastic film, textured and semi-transparent; it turns the entire reality of the street into a quiet, slightly unsettling audiovisual shadow play. I live in an apartment in a building from 1902, on the piano nobile, with 4.50-meter-high ceilings. It's a deliberate, deeply reassuring refuge from the endless noise out there. This oasis of absolute intimacy is what I care about most. But don't mistake that architectural isolation for a lack of awareness! My formative socialization happened at the Otto-Suhr-Institut at the Freie Universität Berlin, a highly politicized, far-left institute, and I've always considered myself a political person. That said, “what I don't like about XYZ” is a way of looking at things I abandoned long ago. Otherwise, I could fill several pages with nothing but frustration. But, to borrow an expression from the world of video games, frustration is like my own inner Ravenholm, and “We don't go there anymore!”

What does the music you've made so far say about you?
Oh God, do you have an hour? Well, I'll give you the short version: for a long time I played the part of the detached, clinical sound coordinator or, as I once jokingly wrote on social media, the “angriest man in Wilmersdorf.” But reality reveals a certain vulnerability instead. My music tells the story of someone possessed by a relentless, protective passion for discovery. It shows a continuous attempt, spanning several decades, to build aesthetic experiences that stand on their own, things that simply are, free from platform metrics or strategic self-branding. If my catalogue says anything about me, it's that I'm willing to invest my entire life in this often grueling micro-work, in an attempt to reclaim a human element while “stuck inside the interface,” rather than accept convenient shortcuts or cheap tricks. It shows that beneath the historical and systemic rigidity, there's always been a genuine love letter to music being written. I've always left room for the drastic and the dreamlike, and sometimes even the grandiose. My life as an artist is a constant interest in discovering what happens next: I'm the one who sets the parameters. I'm the one who does the work. Everything else is noise.

What's the most extraordinary thing about being an artist?
Being able to summon the sudden, spontaneous flash of discovery. Everything else—branding, gauging approval, the relentless noise of digital self-promotion—is just a byproduct that weakens the primary motivation. When you work at the cutting edge of music technology for several decades, you inevitably learn every shortcut, every loophole and every trick of the trade. You see straight through the smoke and mirrors. When, in the middle of a session that might look to some like a full-blown crisis, where a generative setup of heterogeneous data plunges into chaos, you still manage to completely flip the material around with skill and elegance... and with just a few clicks. Try doing that, violinist! From what just minutes ago was pure chaos, you, the artist, manage to bring to light a texture, a quality, a specific, unclassifiable flavor. In other words: you find something. You're not searching, understand? You find! You find something that simply is. Something that completely eludes analysis. And summoning and touching such a fleeting, incomparable sense of wonder is an artistic and human reward beyond compare. Pure alchemy. That rush justifies every single hour spent in front of the screen. And, just like an intoxicating scent, it can stay with you for the rest of your life—these digital frequencies will fade irrevocably into nothing, but they might still leave behind an afterglow capable of changing the life of whoever heard them.

(August 9, 2026)

Ride the wave of great music

Add OndaRock to your favorite sources on Google Discover. Don't miss our reviews, milestones and latest news straight in your feed.

Follow on Google