Some points of contention (you thought we would have answers by now? but we are traveling backwards - how can we?!?!):

í¢â‚¬ ¢ Let's all call rewind for what it is - one of the firstest, cheapest tricks; a toggle, a winddown, a retrograde motion. What is the first thing someone does when they are allowed to play with a turntable? (scratch back and forth) When they get modern audio software? (play with reverse) Scratch Video is the same, as is any course in philosophy. Of course, it is entirely predictable, and that is not to be solely faulted; in is a natural impulse to 'take a mulligan', as it were. Dubstep, in its largely instrumental essence, manages to avoid the reactive "rewind selectah!" calls and stay in the present...

í¢â‚¬ ¢ When the song comes round in a circle (ok, I am speaking here of a chorus), has it rewound?

í¢â‚¬ ¢ Obviously, digital means has transformed the act of rewinding... but what of the aim of it? Wouldn't it be easier to LOOP?! Perhaps the loop was born of a digitized rewind? (let's ask Sonic Foundry?)

í¢â‚¬ ¢ I am not advocating a regression or reversion on the means of production (though if anyone wants to co-author a grant on it, I'm game...); rather, a more fully lived present. The open-source community, the circuit-benders, the earth tribes, and hip-hop's freestyle mc's all know how to have an eternally joyful present - with what they have - without assigning shadows of progress...

í¢â‚¬ ¢ FILM: Dogme 95, 12 years on, already has it's spawn... and its values have been thoroughly assimilated into the Hollywood state machine. A new generation of film school grads have armed ad agencies with cutting edge digital a/v techniques that used to mean something... of course, none of this is new; Capital disarms movements all the time. But it is not a linear mode of progress/regress that we could attempt to rewind; it is a pastiche, a fuzzy logic of time.