Enough with E and U – now the real debate begins

At its general meeting in Berlin, GEMA took a step that was long overdue: the old distinction between so-called ‘serious music’ (E) and ‘light music’ (U) is to be abolished in the context of cultural funding. In future, music is to be assessed in a more genre-neutral way. So no longer will we have, on the one hand, the supposedly ‘higher art’ and, on the other, the rest, which is supposedly only meant to make people dance, sing along or party.

Specifically, from 5 to 7 May 2026, around 1,200 GEMA members from the fields of composition, lyrics and music publishing gathered at the Atelier Gardens in Berlin for the annual general meeting. On 7 May, the reform of GEMA’s cultural funding was approved there with the required two-thirds majority. GEMA itself speaks of transitioning the previous funding in the E and U sectors into cross-genre funding. At last.

If we’re honest, this distinction was never neutral. It was a sort of cultural bouncer in an old jacket, with a haughty look and a guest list at the ready, on which club culture, electronic music, hip-hop, pop, jazz, experimental scenes and many hybrid contemporary forms were long classified as ‘nice, but not really culture’.

Now, at least, that door is open a crack wider. The new GEMA cultural funding scheme is to be introduced gradually in the years leading up to 2030. According to current plans, it will continue to provide around 50 million euros annually for cultural and social purposes.

The special status previously enjoyed by classical music is set to change significantly. Until now, around a third of funding has been reserved for classical music, even though, according to reports on the GEMA reform, this sector contributed only around 3% (in words: THREE per cent) to the funding pot. In future, therefore, funding is to be structured in a more genre-neutral way.

This is a historic moment, yet it is not yet a happy ending.

For the crucial question is no longer: Is electronic music culture? That question has been answered. Since 14 March 2024 at the latest, when ‘Berlin Techno Culture’ was included in the national register of intangible cultural heritage, it has been clear: techno, club culture and electronic music are not merely nightlife. They are social practice, aesthetic space, political expression, urban history, community work and collective memory. The German UNESCO Commission explicitly describes techno culture in Berlin not only as a musical genre, but also as a lived alternative to traditional ways of listening to music.

We, Rave The Planet, have fought for years precisely for this: for the recognition of electronic music culture as a cultural asset worthy of protection. We fundamentally do not see this recognition as an end point, but as a mission. Therefore, the question should now rather be: Will this recognition actually reach the existing structures that distribute money, visibility and participation? And this is precisely where it gets exciting. Or uncomfortable. Probably both.

The old distinction was not only linguistically flawed – it had real-world consequences

‘Serious music’ and ‘light music’ – the terms themselves are a problem. They imply that seriousness is a characteristic of certain genres. As if a string quartet could automatically be more profound than a techno track. As if a musical score were, in principle, more complex than a production that works through sound design, space, pressure, frequencies, arrangement, timing and collective physical experience.

This is not just old-fashioned. It is intellectually shallow and divorced from reality.

Electronic music often operates on different parameters to classical composition. Not necessarily through notation, but through sound architecture. Not always through melodic development, but through texture, space, repetition, microvariation, tension, function, energy and physicality. A good track can read a room before it sets it alight. A live set can be composition, improvisation and performance all at once. A DJ set can be a cultural archive, a mirror of the present and collective dramaturgy in real time. Anyone who calls this merely ‘entertainment’ has either not grasped the issue and/or not listened properly.

The fact that GEMA is now abandoning this outdated category is therefore to be welcomed. But abolishing a term does not in itself create fair practice. A new system can be more open, yet at the same time incorporate new filters that simply sound newer.

“Open to all genres” sounds great, but who actually decides what is eligible for funding?

GEMA speaks of a new structure comprising general funding and targeted funding. In future, particularly relevant works, repertoires and initiatives are to receive targeted support. Musical subcultures are also to be more closely involved in this process. In the run-up to the general meeting, the GEMA Supervisory Board amended the proposal, among other things, with a view to incorporating specialist expertise and further specifying the implementation. This, too, is welcome and right. But it is not enough to simply write ‘subcultures’ into a policy paper as a buzzword.

Club culture is familiar with this kind of vibe: diversity in press releases, but in the end it’s the same old faces sitting around the table. Openness as a label, gatekeeping as an operating system.

If, in future, funding committees, assessment grids, scores and allocation formulas are to decide which music is deemed ‘exceptional’, then it must simply be made transparent: Who is doing the assessing? According to what criteria? With what understanding of the scene? Based on what data?

For it is precisely there that unfavourable structures can persist. Not necessarily out of malice. Often, habit is enough. Networks that have grown over decades, committees in which certain (academic) circles are over-represented. Evaluation frameworks that understand concert halls, notation, broadcasting, academic composition or institutional recognition better than club spaces, labels, collectives, off-spaces, DIY structures, FLINTA* networks, migrant scenes or queer dancefloors.

That would no longer be E versus U. But it would still be top versus bottom.

Electronic music requires different criteria to those of the traditional music world

For electronic music, this reform will only represent progress if the realities of the industry are truly understood. A track does not necessarily come into being as a ‘work’ in the traditional sense. It often emerges from production, sound design, sampling culture, machine logic, performance, remix aesthetics, club functionality and feedback from the scene. Many relevant releases do not go through major publishers or established institutions, but via small labels, Bandcamp, limited-edition vinyl releases, digital niches, community radio stations, streaming, DJ support, clubs and festivals.

The problem is that these very realities are often harder to measure. An orchestral concert is documented. A publisher knows its catalogue. A programme provides context. A review in the specialist classical press lends legitimacy. But what about a track that circulates in the sets of international DJs for months before it is officially released? What about a female producer whose sound shapes a scene, but is rarely or never played on public service radio?

What about a live act that builds a new set every time? What about a collective that creates cultural infrastructure, but doesn’t produce traditional discographies? What about a club track whose cultural relevance isn’t established in the arts pages, but on the dance floor?

If a future distribution formula fails to reflect these realities, electronic music will remain structurally disadvantaged within the system, albeit with more palatable wording.

The biggest challenge: data, club usage and distribution

The issue of distribution is particularly crucial when it comes to electronic music. This is because club culture generates a huge amount of usage, but this usage is not always recorded as accurately as it should be.

Which tracks are played in clubs?
How are DJ sets documented?
How are edits, remixes, live versions, unreleased tracks or tools handled?
How are festival sets, streaming recordings, web radio, mix platforms and hybrid formats factored in?
How can we prevent blanket distributions from once again primarily benefiting those who are already well-organised, well-published and highly visible?

This is not a technical detail. It is the crux of the matter. Because supporting culture is not just a question of attitude. It is a question of infrastructure. Those who are seen are counted. Those who are counted are paid. Those who are paid can carry on. If electronic music is to be taken seriously as cultural heritage, then its use must also be taken seriously. Not just on big stages, but where it lives: in clubs, basements, halls, community spaces, at demos, on independent radio stations, in archives, on dancefloors.

For years, Rave The Planet has demonstrated that electronic music is more than just sound. It is movement, gathering, memory, utopia, protest, care work and cultural self-organisation. The parade sees itself not merely as an event, but as a cultural-political demonstration for electronic music and club culture.

This is precisely why electronic music must no longer be treated as a by-product of the entertainment industry within rights management systems.

GEMA must now provide clarity

Since the decision of 7 May, the reform has been politically established within GEMA. However, many crucial details remain unresolved. And this is precisely where the music scene must remain vigilant. Clear answers are needed on at least five points:

1. What exactly will the new funding criteria look like?
If ‘Focus Repertoire’ is to promote exceptional works across all genres in future, it must be clear what ‘exceptional’ means. Innovation? Reach? Cultural relevance? Technical complexity? Impact on the scene? International resonance? Support for emerging talent? Diversity? Without transparent criteria, genre openness will quickly become a new grey area.

2. Which experts sit on the decision-making committees?
Electronic music must not be assessed by people who know club culture only from a distance. We need producers, DJs, curators, label owners, club operators, festival organisers, scene journalists and people from subcultural structures. Not as a token gesture, but with genuine decision-making power.

3. How can club and DJ usage be better tracked in future?
If distribution is based on incomplete data, it perpetuates injustice. In the electronic music sector in particular, GEMA must explain how it intends to better integrate setlists, club reporting, digital recognition systems, event organiser data and international usage in future, without overwhelming small clubs and collectives with red tape.

4. How can we prevent major market players from dominating the new funding pots?
If new funding mechanisms primarily benefit those with professional application structures, strong publishers, large catalogues and good lobbying contacts, then reform will quickly turn into rebranding. Cultural funding must have an impact precisely where cultural significance does not automatically coincide with market power.

5. How will the reform remain subject to review?
The transition is to take place gradually by 2030. That makes sense. But only if the pilot phase allows for genuine adjustments. GEMA should regularly disclose which genres, scenes, age groups, genders, regions and organisational forms benefit from the new funding. Not as a PR graphic, but as robust transparency.

Not a debate about envy, but one about fairness

It is important to note that this discussion should not be framed as a battle against contemporary art music. Contemporary classical music, new music, experimental composition… all of these remain relevant, worthy of protection, and are often in a precarious position themselves. Nobody wins when underfunded cultural sectors are pitted against one another. But neither should the old order be romanticised. If a system has, for decades, privileged certain forms of music whilst devaluing other cultural realities, then we must be allowed to call it out. Clearly and, even if it is uncomfortable.

Popular music has contributed significantly to the funding pot. According to reports on the GEMA reform, the popular music sector has recently contributed the lion’s share of funding, whilst classical music generated only a small proportion but has long received a significant share of cultural funding. The fact that this ratio was readjusted on 7 May 2026 by a members’ resolution is long overdue.

However: the answer must not simply be that funds will now be distributed according to market logic. For then, in the end, it is not the creative scenes that automatically win out, but the best-managed catalogues. A fair reform must achieve two things simultaneously: it must put an end to the old high culture hierarchy and prevent pure reach, publishing power or data advantages from becoming the new hierarchy instead.

Techno is part of our cultural heritage, and now the system needs to catch up

The recognition of Berlin’s techno culture as Intangible Cultural Heritage on 14 March 2024 was not merely a decorative medal for the display cabinet. It was a cultural and political statement: this music, these spaces, these scenes and these practices have social value. Rave The Planet has brought precisely this perspective to the public’s attention. Not out of nostalgia, nor because everything was better in the past. But because electronic music culture proves time and again that it has an interdisciplinary impact, connects people, creates spaces, organises freedom and channels social energy. On the street, in the club, in the studio, in the collective.

If GEMA is now, and specifically following the members’ resolution of 7 May 2026, abolishing the distinction between electronic and non-electronic music, it must see this idea through to its logical conclusion! Electronic music must not merely be formally incorporated into a genre-neutral model. It must be understood structurally!

This means: fair data, fair committees, fair criteria, fair distribution, fair visibility. Anything else would merely be an update to the user interface, whilst the old code continues to run.

Conclusion

GEMA’s decision of 7 May 2026 is an important step. Perhaps even a historic one. The old distinction between ‘serious’ and ‘entertaining’ music was culturally outdated, aesthetically questionable and politically difficult to justify. But now the real work begins. For fairness is not achieved through new terminology, but through new structures. For electronic music, club culture and the many scenes beyond traditional institutions, it will be crucial whether GEMA is truly serious about its reform, right down to its distribution logic, data collection and committee work.

The door is open. Now the scene must keep an eye on who is allowed through and who ends up left outside again, even though diversity has long been talked about inside.

Over and out.