I grew up on '60s and '70s WDR electronic music; it was super important for me in my teens, not only musically, but also as a gateway to my interest in computers, signal processing and European history.
They mention in the article a bit about the political push against experimental music in the 1930s, but it's interesting to consider that the re-surfacing of such music was also very political: the West were very happy to broadcast free and progressive music across the wall. I definitely have a feeling that experimental music has become a lot more niche since relations softened, the extra funding and promotion has dried up a bit, and now the world of that music has moved almost entirely to the back rooms of various universities.
I think some of this has to do with the people making experimental music. All the noise artists I know would be pretty averse to the idea of government grants to work on their music, it's just against their whole ethos.
I get you, though I do think of the noise scene as having a somewhat separate lineage to the more academically focused dialectic of the WDR and places like IRCAM which still operates.
I can see both sides of the argument about publicly funding music but for me the big differentiator is that something which is publicly funded will inevitably be publicly debated, and I think that critical attention can be very important in creating cohesive schools of thought in art that can have enough appeal to make a difference.
> All the noise artists I know would be pretty averse to the idea of government grants to work on their music, it's just against their whole ethos.
I'm sure their government isn't buying their music but simply letting them put something on the table while they spend their life making music. I would totally love the same applied to other forms of art, except of course those that already have a market.
Yes, it was a way for western powers to show their support of free speech and liberal values. Now that the communist block is gone, there is less incentive to support the arts and claim cultural victory.
Actually, communism controls our own movie industry. Take the famous case of the remake of Red Dawn where they changed the antagonist from China to North Korea. That was done at the TOP levels, communist pressure on Obama, who then exerted pressure on the studio. On behalf of Xi.
John Cena learning Chinese so he could apologize for supporting pro-democracy protests in Taiwan is another one. Our bland culture is partly designed by communism.
Publicly funded radio and TV in Germany was a mishmash of entertainment, education, news reporting but also music production. Entire symphony orchestras and Jazz bands were part of the state-run stations. Private broadcasting didn't exist, maybe wasn't allowed then.
Not surprised to hear about electronic music being funded as well, the public networks had a reputation of being somewhat elitist and high brow.
Just a small correction. They are not state-run but run by a sort of public trust. There are meticulous mechanisms that are intended to keep the public broadcasting system independent of government influence. These work to some degree, and are just ridiculous boongoggles in other cases. E.g. to be independent, they are not funded by taxes, but have their own non-government agency (GEZ) that collects broadcast fees. Nowadays every household has to pay, but even a couple of years ago you could opt out if you didn't have a TV or radio. The GEZ had a special squad of investigators to check if you owned a TV or radio.
All in all it works fairly well, but it is somewhat elitist and panders to a strange bouquet of special interests that strangely mirror the composition of its "neutral" governing body.
All in all though, German radio is pretty good and public television isn't dominated by ads and has high quality content, especially if you are into more high-brow cultural productions. And the news are excellent.
I admire two things here: the hardware aesthetic, which is just beautiful, and the pioneering spirit, which is extremely daring.
That said, I've got a bone to pick with the standard narratives in electronic music history. They dwell on the origins like here but gloss over what I believe to be a cambrian Explosion brought about by DAWs/plugins from the 2000s. I get that it's 'history,' but this explosion deserves far more attention and analysis.
> They dwell on the origins like here but gloss over what I believe to be a cambrian Explosion brought about by DAWs/plugins from the 2000s
That's a bit like saying history about CSS1 is irrelevant because now we have CSS3, they're just different parts of the same history.
Same with electronic music from hardware and electronic music from software. They're a part of the same history, just different parts.
Of course, the latter probably wouldn't exists without the former, most music software emulates what we already were doing in hardware after all, albeit a lot more flexible.
It's also way more fresh, even I as a youngster (~30y) can remember that, compared to all this initial hardware innovation where I wasn't even around to experience.
That said, I'm sure there are plenty of articles about the history of DAWs and plugins, is there not? If there isn't, sounds like the world is waiting for someone like you to put it together :) I for one would read it for sure.
It is certainly not irrelevant, and it certainly is at the basis of most DAW/vst stuff. But, there are still a lot of new ideas around. And you do find some historical articles [1]. No books I know of, though; I wish I could write one :)
I suspect the high complexity and decentralization of the community's evolution leave scholars disoriented. It is the same story for the music being made (with these same tools) itself; the genres exploded around 2000, and most popular music histories speak more of the Beatles than the last 25 years.
And a final point: these new tools (and again, the resulting music itself) are sometimes brushed aside as 'low brow' in academic electronic music circles.
Not really. I’ve been around music tech before and after that point. I would say the explosion was cheaper and more accessible music making equipment whether that was on a computer, cheaper hardware or the secondhand market.
The more recent news in October on the studio since this page was produced is the city of Cologne continues to take an interest in preservation going as far to take ownership and plan to promote and use the space for education and culture centre.
I once visited the remains of the studio in that cellar in Köln-Ossendorf as part of an excursion at university. I felt it was quite sad how it was just parked there, you wouldn't have assumed its historical importance.
The Herbert Weimart (inventor of the first vocoder?) referred to in this article. It immediately makes me think of the pioneering electronic music artist Herbert. I bet it isn't coincidence.
Readit News
They mention in the article a bit about the political push against experimental music in the 1930s, but it's interesting to consider that the re-surfacing of such music was also very political: the West were very happy to broadcast free and progressive music across the wall. I definitely have a feeling that experimental music has become a lot more niche since relations softened, the extra funding and promotion has dried up a bit, and now the world of that music has moved almost entirely to the back rooms of various universities.
I can see both sides of the argument about publicly funding music but for me the big differentiator is that something which is publicly funded will inevitably be publicly debated, and I think that critical attention can be very important in creating cohesive schools of thought in art that can have enough appeal to make a difference.
I'm sure their government isn't buying their music but simply letting them put something on the table while they spend their life making music. I would totally love the same applied to other forms of art, except of course those that already have a market.
John Cena learning Chinese so he could apologize for supporting pro-democracy protests in Taiwan is another one. Our bland culture is partly designed by communism.
Not surprised to hear about electronic music being funded as well, the public networks had a reputation of being somewhat elitist and high brow.
All in all it works fairly well, but it is somewhat elitist and panders to a strange bouquet of special interests that strangely mirror the composition of its "neutral" governing body.
All in all though, German radio is pretty good and public television isn't dominated by ads and has high quality content, especially if you are into more high-brow cultural productions. And the news are excellent.
They still are: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rundfunkorchester
That said, I've got a bone to pick with the standard narratives in electronic music history. They dwell on the origins like here but gloss over what I believe to be a cambrian Explosion brought about by DAWs/plugins from the 2000s. I get that it's 'history,' but this explosion deserves far more attention and analysis.
That's a bit like saying history about CSS1 is irrelevant because now we have CSS3, they're just different parts of the same history.
Same with electronic music from hardware and electronic music from software. They're a part of the same history, just different parts.
Of course, the latter probably wouldn't exists without the former, most music software emulates what we already were doing in hardware after all, albeit a lot more flexible.
It's also way more fresh, even I as a youngster (~30y) can remember that, compared to all this initial hardware innovation where I wasn't even around to experience.
That said, I'm sure there are plenty of articles about the history of DAWs and plugins, is there not? If there isn't, sounds like the world is waiting for someone like you to put it together :) I for one would read it for sure.
I suspect the high complexity and decentralization of the community's evolution leave scholars disoriented. It is the same story for the music being made (with these same tools) itself; the genres exploded around 2000, and most popular music histories speak more of the Beatles than the last 25 years.
And a final point: these new tools (and again, the resulting music itself) are sometimes brushed aside as 'low brow' in academic electronic music circles.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38864623
https://www.stadt-koeln.de/politik-und-verwaltung/presseserv...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlKFeaeS1vc