Hard News: A few (more) words on The Hobbit
1304 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 33 34 35 36 37 … 53 Newer→ Last
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
I'm perhaps the very last person to disagree with that. Of course I can remember and I think it's a mighty thing that the Radioscope chart for 2010 had such a New Zealand dominance.
And yet the paper is full of unsupported and unsustainable statements like that. Just making things up isn't a good basis for getting the solution right.
-
Simon Grigg, in reply to
Just making things up isn't a good basis for getting the solution right.
But I would argue that rattling the cage is. Any solutions to what I see as a self constructed brick wall by the NZ industry are rather more radical than the adjustments we are likely to get.
We got NZ music on the radio. Great. What next? Because if there isn't a next it's a fail.
Perhaps we need to step back and redefine what the words 'NZ on Air' actually means for music in a global marketplace. The goals.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
It may be worth noting (although I'm perhaps reading too much into it given the times) that the album by The Naked and Famous failed, with all the hype, to even go gold. Lots of albums in our country still reach that mark though and yet this record, all over the radio, failed to excite 7500 people to buy the long player (I'm not hating on them either BTW).
It went gold last month, three months after release. Also #1, and 'Young Blood' topped the singles and airplay charts. That's really not bad going for a debut album.
And no matter how you dice it, it's still going to be the artists who work at a professional level, market themselves well and cultivate fans and friends who'll do well.
In that sense, the fact that the people making funding decisions couldn't see that, say, Homebrew had something going on for themselves is alarming. I think that's where a disconnect is really showing.
-
And yet the paper is full of unsupported and unsustainable statements like that.
@ simon
The NZ singles that do so well on the airwaves, with honourable exceptions such as Smashproof, are soundalike (and very dated soundalike to be more ruthless) versions of things that radio liked to add from abroad and do the industry no favours in the longer term.
@ Russell
I think the idea that there has been no progress at all in “get-ting more of New Zealand’s musical culture on air” in 20 years is absurd, although I suppose it depends on how you define “New Zealand’s musical culture”.
So are you just pretending to not understand the finer details of the original point
4) Seek alternatives.
Commercial radio has been indifferent to the objective of getting more of New Zealand’s musical culture on air. 20 years and many millions of dollars have got us essentially no closer to expanding their scope. Perhaps it’s time to acknowledge this and seek alternatives to achieving the same goal.Commercial Radio doesn't want to change. They don't want to expand their play lists, and they don't, with the odd rare exception. Why pretend any different. 25 years ago we had Dragon Golden Harvest, Space Waltz and Split Enz on our commercial airwaves, in prime time.
as Simon says, now we get predominantly artists chosen for their ability to sound like something already on the play list. is that really as much of a progression as you'd have us believe?
-
I think the idea that there has been no progress at all in “get-ting more of New Zealand’s musical culture on air” in 20 years is absurd, although I suppose it depends on how you define “New Zealand’s musical culture”.
So are you just pretending to not understand the finer details of the original point
No, I'm not pretending.
-
Simon Grigg, in reply to
It went gold last month, three months after release. Also #1, and 'Young Blood' topped the singles and airplay charts. That's really not bad going for a debut album.
My mistake, I was basing the statement on the fact it hadn't been certified when it dropped out of the chart. 26th Dec means Xmas retail orders pushed it over I guess (album certs being based on retail orders rather than sales).
Going to number one is great. All it really tells you is there was a one week spike in sales though.
The really successful NZ acts are the ones who are keeping their albums in the charts for many months - the likes of FFD who work because they are so absolutely unique (and have a tune or two). And they sell records around the world because of it.
I'd like to see the discussion pulled away from the same old players but I guess I'm hoping for too much.
-
No, I'm not pretending.
although I suppose it depends on how you define “New Zealand’s musical culture”
kind of invalidates the rant.
-
as Simon says, now we get predominantly artists chosen for their ability to sound like something already on the play list. is that really as much of a progression as you’d have us believe?
I never understand the push to have private radio stations play nz music that differs massively from their overseas music. Radio stations have a brand, play a certain type of music, surely the expectation should be that they play NZ music from inside that range?
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Commercial Radio doesn’t want to change. They don’t want to expand their play lists, and they don’t, with the odd rare exception.
I don’t like commercial music radio and I don’t listen to it, although a hell of a lot of people clearly do. But, you know, a lot of those radio people were delighted to have local stars at hand. I’ll never forget hearing Goldenhorse doing a live-to-air on (I think) More FM during NZ Music Month – two years before they’d been strictly bNet material. I mentioned it in the blog and one of the DJs got in touch to say he and others had urged their PD to do it, and to playlist the record.
Commercial radio people might be weird, but they’re not ogres, and it’s no basis for good policy to treat them as such.
Why pretend any different. 25 years ago we had Dragon Golden Harvest, Space Waltz and Split Enz on our commercial airwaves, in prime time.
Don’t kid yourself. Split Enz and Space Waltz got into prime-time via a light-ent talent show and Golden Harvest were a one-hit wonder put together by an old-school entertainment promoter (love the tunes though!).
‘Poi E’? Radio didn’t want to know. No one played Moana’s A.E.I.O.U. because it had Maori in the chorus. That really changed with the advent of Mai FM – whose adoption of an urban music format was also really influential. Check out the NZ airplay charts for last week – about half of it’s hip hop and R&B.
To us, it largely sounds like standard genre fare. But to the kids who buy Vince Harder, maybe it does actually sound like them. And I really liked that big medley thing that Harder, Jay Williams et al did to open the Music Awards this year. I liked the fact that we have enough R&B stars for a medley. It was cool.
as Simon says, now we get predominantly artists chosen for their ability to sound like something already on the play list. is that really as much of a progression as you’d have us believe?
I’ve said repeatedly that I think the broadcast music funding scheme needs fixing, and has done for some time. And that the influence of radio programmers on funding decisions has become too great, and there need to be other ways of measuring success. But the idea that it was better in the old days can’t really be sustained on the facts.
-
Simon Grigg, in reply to
Radio stations have a brand, play a certain type of music, surely the expectation should be that they play NZ music from inside that range?
Two things: firstly radio operates on licensed airwaves that we own (but yes, they have paid for the right to use that bandwidth).
Secondly, I don't think anyone is suggesting such but in the early days of NZoA radio did slowly start playing things that were pushing their range. Chains for example or Hip Hop Holiday both sounded like songs from another planet when added to commercial radio in NZ, both building via Mai and B-Net. Supergroove are another. The last two were also extraordinarily successful beyond our shores for the same reason. Even now, when I hear Can't Get Enough in Asia, where it gets gold airplay, it stands out. And that's why it worked.
Incidently (and I really don't like harking back to it but it's a reasonable case in point here) How Bizarre, the most successful NZ song on the world's pop airwaves globally ever, was turned down initially as too different by every station in NZ on release aside from Mai FM. That was in the NZoA era.
Don't Dream It's Over, pre-NZoA, was completely ignored in NZ until it was a US hit.
The last one I doubt would happen now. The first I ain't so sure.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
although I suppose it depends on how you define “New Zealand’s musical culture”
kind of invalidates the rant.
Well, no it doesn't. The Mayes paper never spells it out. And it's a good question. How would you answer it?
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Secondly, I don’t think anyone is suggesting such but in the early days of NZoA radio did slowly start playing things that were pushing their range. Chains for example or Hip Hop Holiday both sounded like songs from another planet when added to commercial radio in NZ, both building via Mai and B-Net. Supergroove are another. The last two were also extraordinarily successful beyond our shores for the same reason. Even now, when I hear Can’t Get Enough in Asia, where it gets gold airplay, it stands out. And that’s why it worked.
Can't disagree with that at all. What policy do you put in place to ensure we get those results, though? Clearly, commercial radio still has a huge role to play, because it's what the very large majority of potential fans listen to.
-
Simon Grigg, in reply to
And it's a good question. How would you answer it?
I don't really want to answer it and I think the term should be pulled from any guideline. It defines itself by what we make and play.
-
It defines itself by what we make and play.
And who "we" are.
-
Simon Grigg, in reply to
What policy do you put in place to ensure we get those results, though?
As a first step, I would like to see radio completely removed from the decision making level of the funding process. Their parameters are too narrow and we have people who are perfectly capable of making funding decisions that are not going to limit radio's options. However, radio should be forced to take a risk or two (although what they call a 'risk' and I call a 'risk' may be two different things).
Hell, I'd like to see a bunch of 18 - 22 year olds in the driving seat - young label owners, writers, bloggers and so on. You tell us what's cool. What's sitting out there on the edge that you know about and we don't?
-
But the idea that it was better in the old days can’t really be sustained on the facts.
I can't see that stated anywhere. Why did you substitute in the word better when no one had said it? I think the implication was that in essence not that much has changed as far as what NZ commercial Radio will accept on their play lists. If it fits the format which is predominantly overseas styled it has a chance, if it's outside of that it doesn't.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
Don't Dream It's Over, pre-NZoA, was completely ignored in NZ until it was a US hit.
Come to think of it, cargo cultism is another factor holding us back, and not just in culture.
Another factor to consider is that commercial radio in NZ is glutted compared with overseas markets, thanks to the FM frequencies being sold off too cheaply in the late 1980s. The result is that all of NZ has more radio stations than Sydney alone.
-
And it's a good question. How would you answer it?
It is a good question and not an easy one at that, but it is a question that needs to be address, and there is, if not a narrow defined answer, at least a broadly definable one which needs to be addressed if that is the target of your efforts.
I guess firstly it would be defined by the people of nz, how they see themselves.
It could also partly be defined by how others see us, so what do foreigners say when you ask them what New Zealand music sounds like. Lastly possibly some sort of academic background in the identification of Culture, what it is where it's been, and where it's going. I don't know if there are people actively studying and writing papers on that with reference to modern 'pop music' but that would be some sort of consideration. Graeme Downes possibly?
The point would be to make sure you're addressing at least some of the bases identified by NZers, Foreign perceptions and academic analysis, but what I wouldn't do is ask a guy who's job it is to sell ads what it was.Getting it played is another matter altogether and a job that seems to get sidelined in the rush to get and give out money. It's all about broadcasting after all.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
As a first step, I would like to see radio completely removed from the decision making level of the funding process. Their parameters are too narrow and we have people who are perfectly capable of making funding decisions that are not going to limit radio’s options. However, radio should be forced to take a risk or two (although what they call a ‘risk’ and I call a ‘risk’ may be two different things).
In principle, yes, but the practical risk is that radio will simply not play what you fund. That puts a broadcast funding agency in a very vulnerable position when MCH or Treasury start running a rule over things. Broadcast funding that doesn’t get things broadcast can quite easily be taken away in current fiscal climate.
Hell, I’d like to see a bunch of 18 – 22 year olds in the driving seat – young label owners, writers, bloggers and so on. You tell us what’s cool. What’s sitting out there on the edge that you know about and we don’t?
Yes, and I think this is an element that’s been missing. Ironically, the suggested lineup for an oversight group in the Mayes paper looks a bit geriatric:
Chris Knox, Paul Kean, Mike Chunn, Chris Hocquard, Scott Muir, Simon Sweetman, Nick Bollinger, Gary Steel, Duncan Greive, Vicki Anderson, Rob Mayes, Jody Lloyd, etc.
Although part of me would pay money to see how long several of those people would last around a table together ;-)
I’ve had another scan of the Caddick report and, you’re right, it lacks passion.
But I do think some of the the ideas are sound and do-able – especially the greater focus on alternative radio and online and social media.
-
Simon Grigg, in reply to
In principle, yes, but the practical risk is that radio will simply not play what you fund.
There is a stick in waiting although nobody knows the current state of that stick I guess. Australia and Canada both used that stick with some success.
However, more positively, radio now knows that NZ generated content works. I suspect they would be substantially less resistant than they were a decade or two back. And I'm not suggesting that Flava be forced to play Death Metal. The system falls over if we leave sensible behind.
I do think it's a shame that Mai FM in particular have been subsumed into the corporations. They provided a very healthy door that interesting stuff that was too pop for B-Net could walk through.
Ironically, the suggested lineup for an oversight group in the Mayes paper looks a bit geriatric
I'm older than everyone on that list but two. Where's my invitation?
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Lastly possibly some sort of academic background in the identification of Culture, what it is where it’s been, and where it’s going. I don’t know if there are people actively studying and writing papers on that with reference to modern ‘pop music’ but that would be some sort of consideration. Graeme Downes possibly?
I understand what you're saying, but you're proposing that a committee of academics should decide what commercial pop radio plays.
-
Broadcast funding that doesn’t get things broadcast
Which is why you strengthen the channels that are not historically and logically opposed to the interests of the country's culture.
Does broadcasting on RNZ not count all of a sudden? If you expand the reach and scope of the national radio network doesn't that achieve the aims better than this bottomless pit of funding content. Does content funding really need to be the central focus of the organisation? Surely it's content broadcasting that is the aim?The current course of action by NZ on Air seems to be driven by how they have chosen to measure success. Surely that needs to be looked at too? Is a commercial hit really a cultural success? Monte Video anyone?
-
I understand what you're saying, but you're proposing that a committee of academics should decide what commercial pop radio plays.
No I'm not, I'm saying it's a possible consideration, if suitable people actually exist, and I don't know if they do. It's only logical to get someone who understands the full implications of the landscape. It's a possible consideration and one that couldn't be worse than running it through 2 overseas owned radio chains.
-
There is a stick in waiting although nobody knows the current state of that stick I guess. Australia and Canada both used that stick with some success.
Unfortunately, we sold our stick in trade negotiations, unlike Australia and Canada.
But the genesis of the NZ "voluntary targets" scheme is interesting. It was basically the quid pro quo for the government not further pursuing a national youth radio network. They hated the idea of being competed against with their own tax money way more than they hated a voluntary local quota.
I was on a group that developed ideas for a YRN (some of which i think were ahead of their time, imho), but I did eventually find it hard to get past the massive fixed costs involved in creating and operating a national radio network -- and none of that would be spent on actual content -- and the impact it could have on independent and alternative radio, although there were ways of managing that.
-
Where's my invitation?
you must be under 'etc' Simon.
The point seems to be a broad representation of nzers involved in music creation, a point that Caddick also reflected as being seen as essential by polled NZers., and there seems to be no attempt to represent that list as definitive or anything more than off the top of one's head,
Post your response…
This topic is closed.