Hard News: Bean-Counting the Beat
444 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 … 18 Newer→ Last
-
I CALL ON SIMON GRIGG TO ARBITRATE/INFORM/EDUCATE!
Ok, it was on Mike Chunn's label (actually owned by him and Tim Finn) and was his baby. That said, Ray was angling for an update of Mod for years...he'd approached me to do it with The Screaming Meemees, so I think he may have pitched the idea to Mike.
And yes, one of them did become a member of Radio Backstab AFAIR. And I think he went onto to something else later on...maybe Dawn Raid associated.
Simon / Nick...what I really want a copy of is your Ak89 tape (but not on tape as I don't have a deck). I'd love to hear what that sounds like now. Any chance?
-
And when you get to my age you also realise that one person's shit tune is another person's Anthem ...
I found myself humming that Spandau Ballet song the other day and was quite worried, but then I convinced myself that I was humming PM Dawn instead so that was alright.
-
A shit tune is a shit tune
I'm with Simon on this. Shit, there are lots of shit tunes that I really think are the shit.
Just quietly of course.
-
Monte Video anyone?
-
MCOJ and the rhythm slave ?...thats the way uh huh uh huh !!!
It's crusty old white guys thinking they know
Who you talkin' 'bout, Willis?
Well lets start with columbus and chunn then progress up the chain and though the ages til we get to BS...
-
what I really want a copy of is your Ak89 tape (but not on tape as I don't have a deck). I'd love to hear what that sounds like now. Any chance?
My Mac sits on a tape deck, but I haven't a clue how one transfers cassettes to disc (email me the info on suitable free downloads anyone). As for the tape itself (for it was only ever released on cassette) I have one somewhere and it would be worth a look if I could transfer it. I also have the 'master tapes' somewhere in storage - probably next to a large magnet and mouldy by now!
FYI (for anyone else): AK89 - In Love With These Rhymes was a snapshot of local rap at the time, and the title was an obvious play on the previous AK79 and In Love With These Times releases. Only 200 copies were produced and Flying Nun bought the lot to distribute. How many were actually sold I have no idea, but they must be worth millions by now.
-
^^I kind of remeber that but not really, you got a traklist for it ???
-
Cassette to disk is mandraulic, I'm afraid:
- Plug the cassette recorder into your mic/line in.
- Load Audacity
- Now you need to try recording at various levels until you find a point where the levels are reasonable and it doesn't clip. Too little level is better than too much.
- When you're happy, record it for keeps
- Use the "Normalise" utility which makes the peak of the song 0db.
- Save as FLAC, Vorbis, MP3 or whatever.
- If you like the music, don't own it and it's available, consider buying it and helping the nice artist :-)While I'm here, I think this might be the appropriate thread to plug something:
Tibetan Benefit Gig
Saturday, May 24, 2008 at 8:30pm
BODEGA (Newly Renovated!), WellingtonPlease join us for a night of music and dance to help raise money and awareness for Tibet.
Bands include:
Fire Rabbit
Date With Doom
The Actualities -
- If you like the music, don't own it and it's available, consider buying it and helping the nice artist :-)
Considering what I want transferred, that would be well tricky.
-
Cassette to disk is mandraulic
Thanks for the tip Rich, I'll give it a try. (So stand by, Simon) (ditto for the tracklist Dubmugga)
Is 'mandraulic' a technical term? Back my day all we had was: -
Well lets start with columbus and chunn then progress up the chain and though the ages til we get to BS...
steady on there dubmugga, you might offend someone with you're straight talkin'
not all old people are out of the loop, but they would have to actually work hard at it to stay in the loop.
for the record I think mike chunn is one of the most open and supportive people I've met, personal slips on mod rap excused of course. -
Back my day all we had was:
That's just been reissued on a double CD remastered thingy and I was tempted for about 12 seconds in Hong Kong..quite cheap, but not cheap enough for the oen or two plays it might get.
Re: Ak89...I'm hoping it had Totally Fucked, whoops, I meant, Total Effect on it: NZ's answer to the Vanilla Ice school of how many uncleared samples you can put on a song.
-
Hello there everyone ...
Brendan Smyth from NZ On Air here ...
Sorry I have been slow to join in here. Been busy funding bands! But been following the debate too.
I can’t answer everything that’s been said here - it would take so long and I type real slow - but there are a couple of things that I need to say … to clarify and to correct.
The first thing is to do with NZ On Air’s mandate and how we interpret it…
Going right back to basics ... NZ On Air’s job under the 1989 Broadcasting Act is to “reflect and develop NZ identity and culture” in broadcasting which means, basically, on radio and television. That’s Section 36. And in Section 37(d), it says that we should have special regard for “the broadcasting of New Zealand music”.
The way we interpret all that is by assuming that (a) New Zealand music is a legitimate reflection of New Zealand culture and indentity, and (b) our job is to ensure that New Zealand music is as well represented on the radio (and television airwaves) as we can manage (within the obvious constraints – like we don’t own radio stations or television channels, and we don’t programme radio stations or television channels, and the Act expressly forbids us from having editorial control over programmes or broadcasts that we fund).
The Act doesn’t tell us what is “New Zealand music” (mercifully…!) We have said that, for working purposes, “New Zealand music” is “music made by New Zealanders” where “made” means “performed or recorded” and a “New Zealander” is a “citizen or resident”. We are not the cultural commissars that Rob wants us to be. We don’t say New Zealand music is this or that or sounds like this or that; it is the music that New Zealanders make and, ipso facto, it reflects New Zealand culture and identity, which is a rich tapestry and a coat of many colours, as we all know.
Our job is to get as much of it played on the radio as we can and the tools at our disposal for doing so are (a) funding and (b) promotion. Coercion and regulation are not tools in our toolbox, whether we like it or not. Over the years, we have developed a bunch of funding schemes (albums, radio singles, music videos, radio shows, etc) and promotional strategies (hit dicsc, pluggers, showcases, etc) to help with that campaign to infiltrate radio and we do it in partnership with repertoire owners.
Our job is not to change radio if by "changing radio" you mean force them to play songs that they don't want to (which we can't anyway) or you mean turn them into public service radio. Nor is our job to change the music. Our job is to take the music that New Zealanders make and get as much of it played on the radio as possible. As simple and as hard as that is.
If by "change radio" you mean change attitudes at radio, then I believe we have done that and are doing that. I have witnessed that change from the indifference of the ealy '90s to now and believe me it is real.
And let us not forget the bigger picture. We also fund the New Zealand music work that Radio New Zealand National and Concert do (so, effectively, we fund Music 101 every Saturday afternoon on National Radio). We fund the New Zealand music work of the b.net student radio stations and a string of New Zealand music shows on Kiwi (about $800,000+ a year altogether). We fund access radio stations to provide an outlet for community groups to make and broadcast New Zealand music of their choosing. We used to fund Maori radio but that’s Te Mangai Paho’s job now.
We fund RNZ, the b.nets and Kiwi, and access radio to champion difference and diversity in New Zealand music. New Zealand music culture would be the poorer without these outlets and the good work that they do. Audience is important but it is not the driver here, the driver is difference and diversity.
That’s one end of the radio dial. And then there is commercial or mainstream radio, whatever you like to call it, which is like 80% of the radio stations on the dial with something like 80% of the radio audience. We have a bunch of funding schemes and promotional strategies to tackle the New Zealand music challenge at commercial radio. We have to tackle commercial radio differently. With RNZ, the b.nets, Kiwi, and access radio we have funding contracts that specify New Zealand music outputs because ... well, we fund them. We have no funding contracts with commercial radio stations that give us any leverage at all. They are in control whether we like it or not.
We made a policy choice back in 1991 to tackle commercial radio. No, Rob, it is not in the Act, it was our policy decision. Our strategic priority was - and still is - to infiltrate commercial radio with more and more New Zealand music. It was never because we valued commercial radio more than public radio; it was simply because commercial radio was where the yawning gap was (and coincidentally, where most people were listening). RNZ, the b.nets, access radio were all doing a good job for New Zealand music; they were converts to the cause already and we funded them anyway. But commercial radio was a New Zealand music desert.
Over the years, we have chipped away and where New Zealand music used to be 2% represented; it is now 20% represented. And, coincidentally, many more New Zealanders are hearing and loving New Zealand music. Music made by New Zealanders. Not, maybe, the music that Russell or Simon or Gray Bartlett or Rob or I dig, but music that they dig. And the New Zealand music economy is the livelier for that.
The second thing that I need to say is about who makes the decisions…
No, Rob ... we have not given the funding control over to radio programmers, radio does not “pick the bands”. The reality is that when we are making decisions about which songs to fund, we research those songs with the broadcasters. Yes ... that's true. We do not exist in a vacuum. We consult the broadcasters and we get their feedback on the “airplay potential” of the song from their programming point of view as part of our research. We take their feedback into account, but they do not make the decisions. Sometimes we agree; sometimes we don’t. We do not surrender that responsibility to the broadcasters. It is our decision (after research, consultations, feedback) and we must live with it and be accountable for it. I could (but I won’t…!) list you lots of examples where we have taken punts on songs without broadcaster backing. Sometimes we win, sometimes we don’t, but always, we are pushing the radio mandate as far as we can without falling into the ultra vires void. We push the envelope ... maybe not as far as you guys want us to, but as far as we believe we can go within the broadcasting mandate.
Ironically, in the “halcyon” days that Rob talks about – 1991-1999 – the Kiwi Hit Disc and the Indie Hit Discs were tracklisted by radio programmers, but we stopped doing that in the late ‘90s and took the tracklist job in-house using our own ears and instincts and experience coupled with research coupled with our reading of the radio environment coupled with liaison with the repertoire owner about the timing, etc coupled with our judgement about the strategic value of this or that song to the local content campaign and to our attempts to not just fuel, but to grow, the appetite for New Zealand music at radio. Ironically, when we did that – stopped track-listing the discs based on PDs' picks – a radio programmer told me that “the quality of the discs is so much better now that you are using radio people to help pick the tracks”.
As an aside, all of the artists in the UK Sunday Times story (with the exception of Laurence Arabia for some reason) have (a) had NZ On Air music video funding; (b) been on Kiwi Hit Disc; (c) been featured on NZ On Air Phase Five international samplers in the UK; (d) have got or had NZ On Air Phase Five international promo campaign money - The Brunettes, The Ruby Suns, The Phoenix Foundation. And Cassette, Connan & The Mockasins, SJD, Dimmer have all been on Kiwi Hit Disc and/or got Music Video and/or New Recording Artist funding and/or Phase Four Album funding.
Is there a word limit on blogs…?
Brendan Smyth
NZ Music Manager
nz music on nz radio
www.kiwihits.co.nz
www.kiwihits.com -
Is there a word limit on blogs…?
Heh, don't stop Brendan. Rob & Dubmugga will be most disappointed!
-
The Act doesn’t tell us what is “New Zealand music” (mercifully…!)
too bad it didn't identify it for you If going by the letter of the rule is your thing as it seems to be then bet not leave anything to interpretation. None of this complying in theory and ignoring the actual intent. You've allowed NZ music to be defined as 'that which commercial radio will play' and in doing so have done a great disservice to the broad range of music that others overseas recognise as our strength, our individuality.
We have said that, for working purposes, “New Zealand music” is “music made by New Zealanders” where “made” means “performed or recorded” and a “New Zealander” is a “citizen or resident”. We are not the cultural commissars that Rob wants us to be. We don’t say New Zealand music is this or that or sounds like this or that; it is the music that New Zealanders make and, ipso facto, it reflects New Zealand culture and identity, which is a rich tapestry and a coat of many colours, as we all know.
so you make no effort to reflect all the colours of that coat, to use your metaphor, you allow commercial radio's criteria to dictate the palette, there by failing at your role of reflecting 'nz identity'. essential practicing a form of discrimination.
You're saying you reflect NZ in your funding but really you fund only that which will fit into a narrow format.
You ignore that it was recognised that there was a problem at the gate of broadcasting. the gate keepers were not letting 'us' through. They complained, "the quality's not good enough". you said, "right, we'll get the quality up", funding funding, the quality came up, They did nothing. It wasn't so much the quality as the difference, the New Zealandness of most of it. Then you helped them recreate music in the image they wanted, by selectively funding that which fitted their format and shutting out that which didn't, essentially those bands that your job was created to help.
Our job is not to change radio if by "changing radio" you mean force them to play songs that they don't want to (which we can't anyway),
you mean like a quota? the sort of thing other third world countries like Australia saw fit to install? I'm not condoning smacking them but some house rules for unruly children isn't a bad idea.
Nor is our job to change the music. Our job is to take the music that New Zealanders make and get as much of it played on the radio as possible. As simple and as hard as that is.
It's nowhere near as simple as that and its caused massive bad blood and resignation from the music community that you have refused to acknowledge the results of an oversimplified response to a very complex issue. You have changed the perceived face of music by funding to a criteria set out by commercial radio. You didn't look for other angles to address the problem other than to throw money at the easiest approach. "Yep, they're kiwis playing that shit, it mut me our culture and identity"
There are plenty of other angles to the issue and its solution. Strengthening public radio, and existing supporters of local, and working for a quota are some of those routes.If by "change radio" you mean change attitudes at radio, then I believe we have done that and are doing that. I have witnessed that change from the indifference of the ealy '90s to now and believe me it is real.
That's true possibly, they no longer throw nz discs directly in the bin (this actually did happen at the zm studios in chch as a friend of mine used to rescue them for her collection, a true and verified story).
But has radio really changed. yeah, tThe cringe is gone but really do they know much more past crowded house and split enz. They're not belligerent any more but in practice they're no more open to our diversity and difference than before, as quite a few people on this list have commented. So you might want to put that mission accomplished sign away.
In contrast the UK can have a band as weird as massive attack at the top of their charts. The BBC is one of the most listened to radio stations across many age groups. And we're nowhere near the level of success and diversity as the conservative staid old english. We do have a problem, apparently not being solved.We also fund the New Zealand music work that Radio New Zealand National and Concert do (so, effectively, we fund Music 101 every Saturday afternoon on National Radio). We fund the New Zealand music work of the b.net student radio stations and a string of New Zealand music shows on Kiwi (about $800,000+ a year altogether). We fund access radio stations to provide an outlet for community groups to make and broadcast New Zealand music of their choosing.
That is money well spent.
Radio NZ, kiwi and bnet are often marginalised and forgotten in the picture. I remember either you or one of your minions explaining the demise of the indie hit disc because it only catered to bnets and they could fend for themselves.We have no funding contracts with commercial radio stations that give us any leverage at all. They are in control whether we like it or not.
would a quota have given you leverage? Have you figured any other ways to give you leverage apart from giving them the keys to the Ferrari? Allegedly youth radio network was leverage, but one wonders if you should have pursued the leverage instead of the forever out of reach carrot you chase.
We made a policy choice back in 1991 to tackle commercial radio. No, Rob, it is not in the Act, it was our policy decision.
Really? and who are you to go changing the rules without a govt act to back you up and direct you? I can understand trying a different idea as a test run but I think what you did was a lot more than an experiment, it was a complete redesign and redirection of the scheme, and its been going on for how many years now?.
Why do you think you have the right to over ride the prime directive of the act to a method which so obviously didn't work in nz cultures favour instead favouring commercial radio. You added a commercial radio filter to our cultural funding. Why hasn't anyone picked you up on that? Why haven't you picked yourself up on that?Our strategic priority was - and still is - to infiltrate commercial radio with more and more New Zealand music. It was never because we valued commercial radio more than public radio;
yes, but do it with the directives of the act in mind. fund that which reflects our culture and identity and that which would not otherwise be made.
They're key factors of the act and you have no right to biff them out with the bath water.Over the years, we have chipped away and where New Zealand music used to be 2% represented; it is now 20% represented. And, coincidentally, many more New Zealanders are hearing and loving New Zealand music. Music made by New Zealanders. Not, maybe, the music that Russell or Simon or Gray Bartlett or Rob or I dig, but music that they dig.
They 'dig' what they're given. play anything often enough and it sticks. you know that, don't pretend you don't.
but what commercial radio pushes for you to give them is something as close to what they're already pushing on their audience. That does not reflect our culture and identity. Identity would be how you identify us. our difference.I also notice you avoided my question on the actual part nz on air played in the increase, while you're slipping into the sentence like it was a prize created in a void. anyone in govt actually bother to do a survey on how effect nz on air has been or do they just rely on what you tell em?
And the New Zealand music economy is the livelier for that.
oh really? and you would know this how?. By all the kiwi musicians with big houses and fast cars? They're all leaving in droves cos NZ does not recognise them and their reflection of our identity.
The ones that stay here are the ones that sound like commercial radio want them to sound like, ie like overseas acts and its pointless for those bands to leave for overseas markets cos they have no point of difference form the sounds the emulate. Truth is its never been possible for musicians to survive doing just music, and funding acknowledges and addresses that. When was the last time you helped a musician balance their books? do you really know the cash flow of these people?No, Rob ... we have not given the funding control over to radio programmers, radio does not “pick the bands”. The reality is that when we are making decisions about which songs to fund, we research those songs with the broadcasters. Yes ... that's true.
so your saying your first sentence on this topic is bollocks then.
you don't let them pick but you research songs with them and the ones they like you choose, ok I get it, that's so different from giving them control. you let them sit the test and then you copy their answers.We do not exist in a vacuum. We consult the broadcasters and we get their feedback on the “airplay potential”
ie you run our music through a commercial radio filter. that which fits their mold gets through, that which doesn't has a hard up hill battle,
We push the envelope ... maybe not as far as you guys want us to, but as far as we believe we can go within the broadcasting mandate.
its not pushing the envelope, its doing what the mandate says. That which would otherwise not be funded, that which reflects identity and culture, you're not doing these bands a favour, you're doing your job correctly in these exception rather than the rule circumstances. There's nothing in that mission statement that directs you to pander to commercial radio.
The issue that commercial radio refused to play that which reflected our culture and identity, and was recorded to broadcast standard is another problem that needed to be addressed. Your mission statement directs you to solve the first as a priority, then addressing the second is either an extension of your role or something that needs a bigger stick to solve. There's nothing there to say give the cash to the lowest common denominator. I agree the job is tough, but that's the job, can't do it, then stand aside and let someone else have a go. (not you russell, sit down and stick with the internet)I acknowledge there are some notable exceptions, worthy tracks that nz on air has funded, ie doing your job as you should. Its not all bad, but there is a problem in the way the system works that does not favour our voice our culture, and that is your first priority, and you would do well to remember that.
Ironically, in the “halcyon” days that Rob talks about – 1991-1999 –
They're weren't halcyon days, they were days that we were lead to believe some one knew what they were doing, before patience wore thin. We didn't think it would get worse not better, but then, ...
the Kiwi Hit Disc and the Indie Hit Discs were tracklisted by radio programmers,
Really, I find that hard to believe. There were great tracks on indie hit discs that commercial radio would never have picked. Unless you mean you consulted b net programmers as well, who I have no issue with. Please elaborate on who actually did pick the indie hit disc tracks and the more alternative tracks?
but we stopped doing that in the late ‘90s and took the tracklist job in-house using our own ears and instincts and experience coupled with research coupled with our reading of the radio environment coupled with liaison with the repertoire owner about the timing, etc coupled with our judgement about the strategic value of this or that song to the local content campaign and to our attempts to not just fuel, but to grow, the appetite for New Zealand music at radio.
Really? and who are you and your team again. you've described yourself as a glorified bean counter, and in the RIU anniversary issue you chose your favourite album as REM's latest. Not that I'm criticising you for having taste outside of this country, nothing wrong with that, but that's a pretty interesting statement for someone who was asked to comment in the magazine because of their connection to NZ music funding. Hardly puts up the image of living and breathing kiwi does it?
Which members of your team come from a solid original music background, which ones have a photographic memory of our music past and an understanding of where we've been and where we're going? Who's got the sociology and philosophy degree there?
Ironically, when we did that – stopped track-listing the discs based on PDs' picks – a radio programmer told me that “the quality of the discs is so much better now that you are using radio people to help pick the tracks”.
What does that illustrate aside from showing your affinity for what the people that did their best to keep us off our airwaves like? That radio programmers are hopelessly dense?
The comments I've read over the last few years from industry insiders and taste makers like Simon was that the hit discs were predominantly disappointing.
Personally I think they have been hit and mostly miss. some weird fluctuations of good amongst the completely predictable. Maybe there's not the quality of music out there that we need, maybe you guys aren't quite the makers of taste that you think you are, probably the later eh?As an aside, all of the artists in the UK Sunday Times story (with the exception of Laurence Arabia for some reason) have (a) had NZ On Air music video funding; (b) been on Kiwi Hit Disc;
Ok before you go grabbing the entire credit for their lifes work...... to actually qualify that comment and give it the impact you allude to you should demonstrate just how much they have featured in your funding. 1 or 2 tracks on hit disc?, the odd video grant? How many have they applied for? How many have they not got? Some of these people have been working on their careers for many years, and most of that was off their own back. Others, like lame nz idol runners up get instant funding. Not really consistent are we?
(c ) been featured on NZ On Air Phase Five international samplers in the UK;
an interesting comment from CMJ guy Moose on his recent trip here in respect to continued bad mouthing of NZ on Air he said NZ on Air overseas was not viewed with the same disheartened destain that it is here.
Apparently he only sees all the good stuff, no ones trying to push lame imitation international on him, just the cream of a small crop. Why do they get the good treatment and we still get the pap? Still struggling with local attitudes it appears.(d) have got or had NZ On Air Phase Five international promo campaign money
phase 5 seems to work in our favour though cos sounding like a nz commercial radio cliche gets you nowhere fast when you hit the other side of the ocean. Its our difference that matters there and thankfully you know that, now why won't you push for that here, and not give up till you win?
- The Brunettes, The Ruby Suns, The Phoenix Foundation. And Cassette, Connan & The Mockasins, SJD, Dimmer have all been on Kiwi Hit Disc and/or got Music Video and/or New Recording Artist funding and/or Phase Four Album funding.
good for you. shall I make up a list of the many many chances to aid people who fall directly into the mission statement criteria that have not had the help they're entitled to and need in favour of backing commercial radio fodder?
Is there a word limit on blogs…?
apparently not, but feel free to try and test it.
Thank you Brendan for participating here. Your past avoidances of entering into debate and being closed to the voices from your constituency have done you no favours.
Open discussion and an openness about what you do is essential. Its not all about balancing books, its about seeing to be doing good.
An earnest effort to make nz on air better serve us and not some money-centric advertising pushers would do wonders also.
I look forward to your further comments if you have some.for future net etiquette it's better to break your posts up into smaller points so people can address them seperately rather than spending hours dealing with it as a whole.
-
Heh, don't stop Brendan. Rob & Dubmugga will be most disappointed!
sofie :) u only got in first cos you didn't address anything brendan said.
I think you'll find there are a lot of people reading this thread who don't feel knowledgeable or brave enough to take on a govt official. I hear directly from many of them. -
Hi Brendan,
Ok..this is a late night ramble. Thanks for replying here and attempting to address some of these concerns. Firstly, a couple of things: I’m not really coming from the same place that Rob or Dubmugga or a couple of others are here. I’m not making qualitative or taste judgments about the music funded by NZoA and I think that all original music made for and by New Zealanders should be worthy of attention. I think encouraging NZ’s creativity and then allowing it to be heard is the issue at hand, no? Like you, my personal taste doesn’t come into any of this.Secondly, I know how far we’ve come and I know what a big part you have played in that and I know what battles you’ve had to fight (some you’ve won and some you’ve lost, but the ratio is pretty good) over the 25 odd years we’ve known each other…I guess that makes us the old white men alluded to above ……..but also I know how far there is to go. And how fragile these gains are (with that in mind, I’d love to see that 20% NZ airplay figure broken down into formats and stations????)
Myself, I think only a small part of the war has been won and we’ve lost track of what I’ve always thought the end goal was, even if it was unwritten, which was to allow our music to stand on its own, to have a fair shot at international success and to be supported by a vibrant local industry. That last part is almost there, in no small due to the work of yourself, Mike and Ant at APRA and others. A look at the charts will tell you that commercial radio doesn’t play a major part in this right now. However, we’ve gone from a place where music is no longer completely ghettoised..where radio stations don’t automatically sneer at an NZ record (or at least not at Opshop or Brooke)…I remember being told by a Wanganui radio station that The Screaming Meemees should record…they were number one at the time, and that sort of attitude was prevalent until the early 2000s. Lets not forget, these same people who now turn up at NZ Music ceremonies fought tooth and nail to keep it off the air.
And in a way that last bit is the problem I have. It’s a tricky one because, as you say, these stations are not publicly owned and they paid good money for the right to broadcast. Sadly (and that’s another reason I ask about how the 20% is broken down) these people, commercial radio, play a very small part in the rise of the industry. They play safe, and play as little as they can get away with, taking no risks. The bulk of what we call NZ Music still remains thoroughly ghettoised by them, but survives because of widespread public support, b-net and the like. Take a look at the singles chart, it’s almost NZ Music free (unlike the albums, but many of those have sold despite the lack of airplay). The bulk of your Kiwi Hit discs are ignored by radio because they can hide behind the two or three tracks they are playing.
None of which helps our music stand up and gives it a shot internationally. We need to be encouraging points of difference, not radio friendly tracks that merge effortlessly with the formats. I may be proved wrong but Opshop and Brooke Fraser are exactly the sort of NZ records that don’t stand a shot outside NZ. We need to be a little more brutal in forcing radio to play the Fat Freddies and the ilk, so that they get exposure. Radio needs to be forced out of its comfort zone. When commercial radio makes up it’s percentage by high rotating one or two radio friendly acts, we’ve not come that far at all I guess.
Maybe this far into the game, we do have to look at changing radio.
Talking of radio, this survey in the US today is fascinating. I don’t think NZ is that different.
Amongst it’s conclusions: 86% of music buyers find out about music through TV, radio or movies. -
I’m not really coming from the same place that Rob or Dubmugga or a couple of others are here.
you just put the points across with softer gloves simon. you cover many of the points I've raised and have been raising for years.
-
Been busy funding bands!
This didn't go un noticed you hard done by regular kinda guy.
want to know what I did with my day?
Met with one of the best bands I've seen in 10 years, to help em record an album off their own backs and mine. They were playing at that little expo thing 2 of your staff were at but weren't really paying attention. They've been around for 5 years, never really had much supportsome times these things are given to you on a plate right under your nose, and you still don't sniff.
another band who doesn't think nz on air when they think about how to get their music out there.
do you see that as an issue you might like to address in the future or is everything just as you'd like it?
-
.
• 90% of people ages 18-35 find out about music through TV, radio and movies. The number drops to 86% for ages 36-50 and to 76% for 51 and over
did they say where they found out about music from outside of those three sources?
is that indicating that the older you get the more you use the internet?
it wasn't reflected in the from friends stats.maybe the older you get the less you 'find out about music"
-
And so there we have it ladies and gentleman, the end of the great NZMM NZOA debate 2008.
Clear evidence to any youngsters out there that;
* most musicians and industry types take drugs,
* taking drugs in excess isn't a winning formula for shit hot blog comment writing.
and though they'll all deny it till their blue in the face, I'd wager that at least a good 10% of the total NZOA allocation to musicians has been used to purchase narcotics.
hence... -
Good work Brendon on your promotion of the imitation North American accent as reflecting and developing NZ identity and culture.
deafman.
-
for future net etiquette it's better to break your posts up into smaller points so people can address them seperately rather than spending hours dealing with it as a whole.
Surely you jest, rob, lecturing people on net etiquette? You are kidding, right? No? Doctor, heal thyself, I say. Really, man, get a grip. Have you seen how long some of your posts are?
-
__the Kiwi Hit Disc and the Indie Hit Discs were tracklisted by radio programmers,__
Really, I find that hard to believe. There were great tracks on indie hit discs that commercial radio would never have picked. Unless you mean you consulted b net programmers as well, who I have no issue with. Please elaborate on who actually did pick the indie hit disc tracks and the more alternative tracks?
Sigh ... they were named and quoted in the booklets that came with the discs. I'm surprised a music historian wouldn't know that.
-
I may be proved wrong but Opshop and Brooke Fraser are exactly the sort of NZ records that don’t stand a shot outside NZ.
Ironically, that boring, earnest Brooke Fraser song, and the OpShop song that I couldn't hum to you if I tried were up against two inspired, original pop songs in 'Beautiful Haze' and 'Crazy? Yes! Dumb? No!' at last year's Silver Scrolls ...
And who did the APRA members pick? Brooke.
Will people look back in years to come and think of 'Albertine' as the sound of '07? Nope.
Ah well.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.