Honestly I can't give you a definitive answer, vaporwave has been taking off in so many different directions and I doubt all of them have an anti-conumerist/capitalist stance. I think what made early vaporwave so appealing for an anti-capitalist interpretation was the appropriation of capitalist media/imagery (pop music, muzak, elevator music, e.t.c.) into a new aesthetic experience. Combining Japanese and unicode characters, corporate textual features (the trademark and reserved symbols for one), and unoffensive muzak all can lead to anti-capitalist interpretations, even if the intentions of Vektroid or Daniel Lopatin weren't exactly that. Vaporwave has critiqued capitalism (internet club is the biggest example, and he has said outright he wanted to do “something very Debordian, about how this capitalistic society has generated a dehumanizing hyperreality by focusing on infinite generation of ideals as shown through commodities.), but it can comment on a plethora of different ideas as well. MEGACHURCH (S/T record) is a look at the megalithic structures of megachurches and how their viewpoints are telegraphed and composed. OVERGROWTH by Oscob and Digital sex is about the slow transformation of the environment into technological living spaces. Even something like ルートバックホーム by remember is all about moving through a contextual space, not worrying about the destination, only the journey it takes you. So it's hard to make a sweeping claim about the anti-consumerist themes in vaporwave.
Now my own music is a different story. Originally, there wasn't any inherent (or coherent for that matter) thematic decisions when it came to my music as windows. I've always hinted at things like corporate identity, the recontextualization of commercial music (or as Marcel put it: the new Utopia of commercial revisions), and the "big data" information on the internet as well as it's linguistic structures. But it was never solidified as something like Now That's What I Call (which is a direct statement against copyright and the fragility of pop music). That doesn't mean Marcel's or your interpretation is invalid, I never thought what the creator said on a subject is final (Barthes' Death of the Author, anyone?). I usually never form my music around the philosophical/political implications of it, it mostly starts out with the music itself and then has meaning applied to it. MUSIC FOR AIRPORTS was just a collection of 2 recordings that I spanned into 3 tracks, but when I made the project I did want to comment on some things. Like the globalized commodification of transportation, the intrinsic busyness of airports (and what that's like aurally), the almost simulacrian experience that's advertised by airlines, as well as flipping Eno's record on its' head, sonically and aesthetically. My overarching point here, is that your own interpretation of art is more important the original intention of the author when it comes to discussing it. It's always valid.
View more
