118 pointsby tcp_handshaker7 hours ago16 comments
  • emptybits2 hours ago
    If you like Kraftwerk and you're not aware of this book, I recommend it:

    "Kraftwerk: Future Music from Germany", by Uwe Schütte. It's packed with details of albums, songs, tours, equipment, and people.

    The anti-nuclear message in "Radio-Activity" certainly came later and was repeatedly updated, right into the Fukushima era [2011], but this was not the original sentiment [1976]. From the book:

    "At the time, Billboard magazine featured the most-played singles by the large network of radio stations under the heading 'Radio Action'. The band seemed to have misread or misremembered this as 'Radio-Activity'. 'Suddenly,' remembers Wolfgang Flür, 'there was a theme in the air, the activity of radio stations, and the title of 'Radioactivity is in the Air for You and Me' was born. All we needed was the music to go with it. ... The ambiguity of the theme didn't come until later.' Radio-Activity was intended to celebrate radio broadcasting as a convenient, easy and democratic means to listen to music and news."

    • TedDoesntTalkan hour ago
      Great story. Had no idea. Still love the name Uwe. One of those German names that doesn’t have an English equivalent unlike, say, Pieter.
  • ainch6 hours ago
    I love Kraftwerk, but contributing to anti-nuclear sentiment in Germany hasn't been a major success. If only more European countries had followed the French example and developed substantial nuclear fleets.
    • 011000115 hours ago
      Like most backward looking judgements these days, such things require understanding the culture and zeitgeist of the mid 70s.

      I'm pro-nuclear as well, but understand that for many decades the "smart" thing to do was to oppose it. I wouldn't expect a musical artist to have a more nuanced opinion than most of their contemporaries.

      • cluckindanan hour ago
        More like the robot thing to do.

        Anti-nuclear sentiment in Germany was entirely manufactured; it was the product of Gerhard Schröder and similar robots who enriched themselves on Russian oil and gas.

        Ironically, it is also where the so-called Green Party began.

      • JuniperMesosan hour ago
        I quite enjoy the 1979 Dan Fogelberg song Face the Fire from a purely musical perspective, despite it being an anti-nuclear-power anthem written in the wake of three mile island. There's no reason to expect that Kraftwork's poltical ideas are good ones or were good ones at the time, even if it resulted in some good music.
      • colechristensen4 hours ago
        It was largely our own governments wanting to scare us of nukes so we'd be scared of the Soviets, like in America with the schoolchildren doing duck and cover drills.

        Having enemies the population is afraid of is good for politicians and they'll take any enemies they can find, and they'll do so indiscriminately regardless of the real nuance of the issues.

        Immigrants, abortion, this religion or that, rock music, jazz music, alcohol, marijuana, global warming, windmills, books... just whatever as hard as they can regardless of if it's reasonable or not.

        • 011000113 hours ago
          I think it came from peaceniks and hippies mostly. You're talking about the equivalent of modern anti-vax liberals. Anti-science and given to conspiracies and mysticism.

          There was a pretty good reason to be scared of nukes when these folks were children in the 50s. The world was quite a different place back then. The US was lagging behind the Soviets, militarily speaking, and Communism was much more expansionary.

          • happymellonan hour ago
            > anti-vax liberals

            Just a small correction, but the anti-vax arguments are very conservative, not liberal.

            • secretsatan36 minutes ago
              There is undeniably a middle class anti vax wellness leftist movement whether it was originally conservative or not, unfortunately.
              • userbinator17 minutes ago
                Appeal to nature is something that definitely cuts across the political spectrum.
        • TurdF3rguson2 hours ago
          The Soviets were parking nukes in Cuba in striking distance of the White House. If that's not legitimately terrifying to you, I just don't know.
          • thombatan hour ago
            Which directly followed the USA stationing Jupiter missiles in Turkey with the range to strike Moscow. As part of the mutual climb down from the missile crisis the USA removed the Jupiters, as both sides then understood the wisdom of avoiding hot brinkmanship
          • zorked2 hours ago
            Not anymore than the US being able to strike worldwide to this very moment. They are the only country that has used nuclear bombs against civilians.

            The big problem is having one country be able to do it without deterrents and with impunity. MAD is a good thing, if anyone will have those things at all.

            • TurdF3rguson2 hours ago
              One of those things is scarier to American school children and their teachers than the other.
          • Tepixan hour ago
            Their nukes are still within striking distance.
    • kingleopold6 hours ago
      coal kills more people, this is a fact. so with blocking nuclear lead to coal, so they indirectly supportered killing thousands, incredible stats really. who said art can't be bad for the public?
      • kev0095 hours ago
        A hidden danger of coal is ironically the radioactivity of its waste, which gets put into concrete products and contribute to indoor air quality issues.

        The paranoia around nuclear power is tied to generational fear mongering of governments during the Cold War. The oddest part is why not use safer reactor designs; water reactors make sense for the US Navy and not on land.

        • mejutoco10 minutes ago
          > The paranoia around nuclear power is tied to generational fear mongering of governments during the Cold War

          And Chernobyl. And Fukushima. Nuclear is great but it has some very real risks

    • Tepixan hour ago
      I, for one, am glad we don‘t have yet another 2600 square kilometers exclusion zone in densely populated Germany, like the one around Chernobyl.
      • Rygian23 minutes ago
        I'm glad we don't have exclusion zones like that one in France either.
    • pepa656 hours ago
      What do you mean by "nuclear fleets"??
      • acidburnNSA4 hours ago
        This is often used within the industry to mean many dozens of commercial nuclear power plants.
    • msla6 hours ago
      Being against nuclear only kept the world on coal longer.
      • senectus16 hours ago
        only if renewable resources are not considered an option.
      • rectang6 hours ago
        And perhaps meaningfully contributed to a reduction in the quantity of radioactive waste products requiring custodianship on a timescale that humans can barely conceive of let alone commit to or execute responsibly.
        • acidburnNSA4 hours ago
          I always find this sentiment curious for 2 reasons:

          1. Radioactive waste gets less toxic over time unlike many toxins like mercury, lead, and cyanide. People seem to emphasize the duration of toxicity for radiation while apparently giving 'forever toxins' a total pass.

          2. Short-lived radiation is what's really dangerous. When atoms are decaying fast, they're shooting out energy that can cause real damage fast. Longer-lived radioactive stuff with billion-year half-lives like natural uranium can be held in a gloved hand, no problem. In the extreme, and infinite half life means something is stable and totally safe (radiologically at least).

          Yet people still want to emphasize that radioactive byproducts of nuclear power have long half lives. I don't really get it.

          • rectang2 hours ago
            I don't trust the coal industry to manage forever chemicals over the long term, and I don't trust the nuclear industry to manage spent nuclear fuel over the long term.

            The question that matters for both industries is what bad things happen when their stewardship inevitably lapses and the happy path dead-ends.

            I don't like either answer, so that heightens the urgency of pursuing alternatives with fewer long-lived hazardous byproducts. Neither coal nor nuclear is an acceptable long term solution.

          • cma3 hours ago
            There were also big proliferation concerns out of 70s era designs.
        • mgfist5 hours ago
          Coal power produces more radiation waste into the environment than nuclear power. That's because nuclear power has this amazing quality where all the waste is neatly packaged whereas burning coal just releases it into the air.

          > requiring custodianship on a timescale that humans can barely conceive of let alone commit to or execute responsibly.

          This is fearmongering. Casing waste in big concrete casks is enough. It's so incredibly overblown that we're willing to burn coal and kill people over it.

          • rectang4 hours ago
            I distrust techno-optimist promises to manage ever-growing collections of spent nuclear fuel over millennia. We can hardly trust plant operators to manage it safely over decades.

            Will it actually get encased successfully, will it be stored onsite in environmentally sensitive areas because it’s too much trouble to move, will your children’s children uphold the commitments you foisted on them through the political and economic turbulence in their lifetimes, and if not what happens comparatively when those coal ash heaps and nuclear fuel dumps are left to rot…

            The externalities of concentrated radioactive material are not something that our socio-economic institutions are capable of handling at scale. Tragedies of the commons are the rule and eventually all of that waste will be go through periods of mishandling at one time or another.

            • mgfist4 hours ago
              > I distrust techno-optimist promises to manage ever-growing collections of spent nuclear fuel over millennia. We can hardly trust plant operators to manage it safely over decades.

              Nuclear power plants have been extremely safe for many decades! Fuck, even the worst disasters related to nuclear power plants have killed less people than coal or oil disasters, even including Chernobyl which was a fuck up beyond comparison.

              > Will it actually get encased successfully

              Yes, this is literally done and has been done for many decades.

              > will it be stored onsite in environmentally sensitive areas because it’s too much trouble to move

              What does that mean? You can live 1 feet away from a cask and receive less radiation than you do from the sun.

              > will your children’s children uphold the commitments you foisted on them through the political and economic turbulence in their lifetimes, and if not what happens comparatively when those coal ash heaps and nuclear fuel dumps are left to rot…

              This is a bad argument because all of society relies on our grandchildren upholding present commitments. What happens if our grandchildren stop upholding the electricity grid? They die. What happens if they stop large scale agriculture? They die. And on and on and on.

              > The externalities of concentrated radioactive material are not something that our socio-economic institutions are capable of handling at scale.

              It's quite literally something society has been doing very successfully for 50+ years.

              • mejutoco6 minutes ago
                You argue it is safe. When it is not (Chernobyl, Fukushima) then you argue it kills less people. That is before considering the possibility of these sites being attacked during war (see Zaporizhia in Ukraine) and how centralized they are vs solar.

                Rectang explained it very well, and all their points stand imo.

            • AngryData2 hours ago
              Because of anti-nuclear sentiments we are right now currently storing used nuclear waste in its most dangerous form in the most open and uncontained and open storage lots. Worrying about expanding nuclear and ending up putting the waste in a hole deep in the ground is such a nonissue to me. If humans blast themselves back to the neolithic era and 5,000 years from now some dudes die from walking into some old facility die, who cares? There are masses of people dieing right now because we are still relying on fossil fuels, many of them from cancer from breathing the radioactive fallout that is downstream of every coal plant.
              • rectangan hour ago
                Seems to me that pro-nuclear sentiments have at least as much to do with ongoing accumulation of nuclear waste as anti-nuclear sentiments.

                > Worrying about expanding nuclear and ending up putting the waste in a hole deep in the ground is such a nonissue to me.

                Blithe minimization of the problem of storing nuclear waste over millenia feels like "Peak HN". :)

                ("Peak HN" jabs are a cheap shot, though — so let me engage more seriously...)

                First, "coal vs nuclear" is a false dichotomy. Everybody I see advocating for nuclear power in this thread is advocating for it as a permanent solution rather than an interim solution — in which case there are other competitors.

                Second, if nuclear waste is too dangerous for less-than-ideal storage conditions, that speaks negatively to the viability of nuclear power — because over the long term less-than-ideal storage is guaranteed by our inability to design incentive structures for responsible stewardship that persist over centuries.

          • 5 hours ago
            undefined
  • LeoPanthera6 hours ago
    The original version is quite different from the version performed today. The original lyrics refer to the pun of "radioactivity" versus "radio activity", meaning, activity on the radio.

    The new live version refers almost exclusively to the former meaning, and adds "stop" to turn it into a protest song.

    I've seen Kraftwerk live twice, at London's Albert Hall and Berkeley's Greek Theater, both times absolutely amazing. Highly recommended.

    I've often thought they would be the ideal band to perform inside the "Sphere" in Las Vegas.

  • WatchDog6 hours ago
    If the suggested political impact of this music is to be believed, the music might be one of the biggest environmental disasters of all time.

    Germany has been pretty widely criticized for decommissioning it's nuclear power program, only to replace it with Russian oil.

    • lovemenot6 hours ago
      >> only to replace it with Russian oil

      with Russian gas.

      • MomsAVoxell6 hours ago
        s/Russian/American/

        Either way, Germany has perfected the efficient foot bullet, at least.

        I could imagine Kraftwerk devising a stonkin’ “Fußkugel” track, actually ..

    • Barrin926 hours ago
      that would be an odd criticism because we never generated any meaningful amount of electricity from oil (and started importing Russian fossil resources 30 years before we turned nuclear power plants off). The chief source for energy in Germany was coal. Gas is primarily an industry and heating input rather than a source of power generation, gas plants have only become more popular in recent years.

      What replaced all other fossil fuel sources are renewables, which at 50% are now by far the single largest source of energy.

  • nntwozz6 hours ago
    Ruckzuck is way more interesting and ahead of its time (1970).

    https://youtu.be/yUFc5QoMG1E

    P.S

    Also check out Ashra - Deep Distance (1976).

    https://youtu.be/BJZ9PVvu9OA

  • erickhill2 hours ago
    Saw them last year in Seattle. One of those bands I never thought I'd get the chance to see (I'm 54), but thanks to them they are still touring and making great music.

    It was an amazing show, and incredible night.

  • alanwreath6 hours ago
    Only related in awesomeness but whenever I see VLC’s icon I think of Kraftwerk.

    Kraftwerk sounds novel even today, I can’t imagine how it must have sounded 50 years ago.

  • jerkstate5 hours ago
    It’s a shame they were so anti-nuclear. Best song on that album was Ohm Sweet Ohm.
  • the_arun6 hours ago
    IMHO Autobahn is still their best.
  • cmrx646 hours ago
    The Electronic Harpsichord, same year. must have been an interesting time.
  • TurdF3rguson2 hours ago
    Totally Rad.
  • vanderZwanan hour ago
    One of the things whose non-existence I'm mildly surprised by: a mash-up between Kraftwerk's Radioactivity and Imagine Dragons Radioactive. Sure, they're extremely different songs melody-wise but that never stopped people from successfully mashing up songs before, and the underlying beat is almost the same but reversed, which is kinda interesting[0][1].

    Also, has anyone ever compared the cultural context and zeitgeist of both songs? Probably would be a fun high school assignment, haha. Kraftwerk's song came out in the same decade that the Club of Rome published its Limits To Growth report[2], so when fears about humanity's future really started to become A Thing that was impossible to ignore. Later versions of the song turning it into a protest song encapsulate Cold War fears for a nuclear apocalypse of the time (presumably, I wasn't really around yet back then).

    The main audience for the Imagine Dragons song was a generation fully born after the fall of the Berlin Wall. One that grew up playing the Fall Out games. It also came out in 2012, right after the 2008 crisis kick-started the "oh the previous generation will leave us with nothing huh?" Doomer mentality among millennials and Gen Z kids. Remember the media going nuts over the "Ok, Boomer" expression for a while? (which still feels like the media intentionally dividing a community to stop it from actually fixing things me, tbh, but let's not get too side-tracked)

    In that context, when put side by side the ID song almost feels like a Doomer generation follow-up and implicit critique of how nothing seems to have actually be done about to prevent the impending apocalypse that the Kraftwerk song's generation was supposedly so worried about, turned into a fantasy about living in that post-apocalyptic planet.

    It's "vibe" is weirdly hopeful too, especially compared to the Kraftwerk song as well. Instead of fearing an apocalypse, it's set after one and embraces living within it.

    At least, that's how the two songs come across to me, which probably says more about me than anything else. Apparently Dan Reynolds, main singer on ID and one of writers of the song, has said that in retrospect after almost a decade, he had realized that it was actually about him "not giving up hope after losing faith in Mormonism."[3]. Which makes sense as a personal experience of going through feeling doomed and figuring out how to survive and embrace living on in a "post-apocalyptic" world on a personal, social level.

    I think that's what annoys me about the Kraftwerk song's status as a protest song, and a lot of other music from the same era: it doesn't feel like it's insisting on a better future. It's passive late 70s, early 80s pessimism.

    [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3viBe2Q0P8

    [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyXeJZJUFHE

    [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_of_Rome

    [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_%28Imagine_Dragons...

  • 7 hours ago
    undefined
  • xgulfie6 hours ago
    saving you a click: it's Radioactivity
  • 6 hours ago
    undefined
  • jchip3035 hours ago
    [dead]