Hard News: Bean-Counting the Beat
444 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 18 Newer→ Last
-
you didn't agree with the demise of radio or the superiority of internet in the music market place, yet
Because the 'above' I referred to was above and did not say either of those things
-
__Are you saying it isnt in a roundabout fashion funded by advertising on traditional broadcast mediums ?__
yes that is what I am saying.
I'm inclined to disbelieve you. It says NZoA is funded by the gov't which in turn is funded by ???... I'm picking some form of tax from the broadcast sector which is ultimately reliant on advertising.
So if it is funded by our taxes surely that gives us even more authority to call for change. In which case what is the appropriate process to follow ???
And does anybody know what does the nats arts/music/culture policy involves re NZoA ???
-
So if it is funded by our taxes surely that gives us even more authority to call for change. In which case what is the appropriate process to follow ???
For any government process, I suggest that you could start with writing to the appropriate Minister(of Broadcasting).In this case, the Hon.Trevor Mallard.Bear in mind though, the "authority to call for change" you mention will take more than a letter but that is a start and his office can advise you . Good luck!
-
Hey Russell why don't you invite brendan to take part in the debate on here, if he's so up for it as he said.
Apparently he's so out of the loop in his search for public opinion and debate on Music Funding that he doesn't know about the existence of Public Address so perhaps your first task as internet guru to the stars could be to show brendan how to work an internet browser :) -
Any band today needs;
a youtube channel
a myspace page
a facebook page (for gig invites etc)
a Last Fm account
A flckr account (so you can upload flyers to create links to)
....a DATABASE!!!!.... to get emails off people at gigs etc. This is the most valuable piece of marketing any band can have these days.I see no mention of talent or passion there..
Being an artist of any description is about expressing yourself, getting your vision across. Of course, you have to have a vision that others can relate to to be "successful" ie.. popular.
If all the vision you have is "I want to be a famous Rock Star" then who else would give a toss other than your Mum and maybe a few mates?
It's bad enough having corporate sponsored bands, Lion Red Rockabilly Rustlers or Double Brown Dubsters anyone? but State Sponsored Singers of Songs? give us a break.
If you want to be in a band good on ya, go out and play, have fun and hope enough people enjoy your shows so you can do it for a living.
As for making videos, I listen to music, I don't watch it. Like do you actually go to see a band or do you go along and listen with others and enjoy the atmosphere conjured up by the music?Whatever, socially maladjusted people who seek adoration and believe they deserve it as a right can always go on a sickness benefit ;-)
-
For any government process, I suggest that you could start with writing to the appropriate Minister(of Broadcasting).In this case, the Hon.Trevor Mallard.Bear in mind though, the "authority to call for change" you mention will take more than a letter but that is a start and his office can advise you . Good luck!
I'm in no hurry so might just wait til the* ahem* inevitable change of gov't and see where key is at ?
Looks like the public service is in for the hell shakeup and knowing traditional nats policies on arts and culture and helens pet project which is/was NZoA. I'm pickin BS is gonna have to show a bit more cleverness and vision than he ever has.
So who here is into Burial ? Dubsteps anonymous and visionary superstar ? Even if musically his vision is backwards looking the marketing angle is surely not. Word of mouth hyperstition of an insular underground musical scene picked up by the tastemaking blogosphere to make real overground traction...
i think theres something in that for all of us...no ???
-
Apparently he's so out of the loop in his search for public opinion and debate on Music Funding that he doesn't know about the existence of Public Address so perhaps your first task as internet guru to the stars could be to show brendan how to work an internet browser :)
I wouldn't blame him if he didn't want to engage with petty comentary like that, but I've discovered the problem. Brendan was keen to do it, but I made a mistake in setting up his login for him, so it didn't work.
He went so far as to register under slightly different name, but by the time he'd spent two hours today typing a post today and when he hit save, the login had dropped off and his post disappeared. How embarrassing. So: my fault, not his.
I hope he tries again.
-
I'm in no hurry so might just wait til the* ahem* inevitable change of gov't and see where key is at ?
Ahh... so you were just avin' a whinge. innit!
-
Not at all Sofie. I asked a valid question but I just dont see the point in forcing an issue that in a years time may not exist.
He went so far as to register under slightly different name, but by the time he'd spent two hours today typing a post today and when he hit save, the login had dropped off and his post disappeared. How embarrassing. So: my fault, not his.
I hope he tries again.
I hope so too. Its a brave man to come out and get down and dirty with the great unwashed.
Maybe he could type it in word or notepad then cut and paste into here.
-
but I made a mistake ...
..........register under slightly different name......spent two hours today typing a post .....he hit save,............ login had dropped .....post disappeared............my fault, not his.......... I hope he tries again.so essentially you're saying the dog ate his homework.
I wouldn't blame him if he didn't want to engage with petty comentary like that,
well it was a petty comment when I wrote it but after that long winded explanation on how couldn't handle the simple process of signing up to a discussion group I think my comments were decidedly on the (tax payers) money.
how was it your fault again. isn't the sign up process full accessible to anyone at any time? -
well it was a petty comment when I wrote it but after that long winded explanation on how couldn't handle the simple process of signing up to a discussion group I think my comments were decidedly on the (tax payers) money.
No, they weren't.
how was it your fault again. isn't the sign up process full accessible to anyone at any time?
I set up logins for all three panelists, but I didn't initially copy in Brendan and Duncan to let them know. Then I think I mistyped his name, so he wouldn't have been able to log in. He tried registering again, but our system had a registration against his work email already.
So, in his own time, he registered from his family email address, with his middle name. But he lost his post because the login dropped off in the two hours he was writing it (this has actually happened to me before). It's Murphy's Law ... and largely my fault.
Frankly Rob, I don't enjoy being called a liar and I'm tired of the way you bait people on this forum. Sort out your attitude, please.
-
If brendan does manage to get his batchelor's of internets I'd be interested in
1) expansion on his comment that radio had increased yeh percent.
2) Why it specifically mentions on NZ on air's web page such lofty concepts as culture and identity yet the music wing of it specifically avoids dealing with such issues, apparently in direct contradiction to the mission statement.
3) Why he said he welcomed debate when he obviously avoids it? (We've been discussing this and the media 7 discussion for 4 full days now)
Why did he unregister himself from the NZ Radio Discussion Group?4) What is the name of the document he says he got his brief from for direction of NZ on Air and where can we get a copy of it?
5) Who is responsible for the policy change in 98-99 where radio programmers were bought on to the decision making panel?
6) If you were trying out an idea to see if it word with the programmers as gate keepers thing how long is long enough to assess its success.
7) In claiming credit for the success of the tenfold increase in radio play of kiwi how much of that increase would you attribute to other factors, such as
- channel Z, with its massively positive Kiwi vibe, on the street presences and in school gigs with local bands,
- local bands breaking through on their own, through hard slog ground up gigging (remembering this was the hey day of Shihad, Salmonella, Fur Patrol, Good Shirt etc),
- old school kiwi music supporters from the 80's now being in positions of power in media such as advertising, who slipped successfully kiwi iconic (but ignored at the time) music into their campaigns.
That'll do for starters.
good luck with the signing up process, god knows how the rest of us made it through the minefield Public Address set for us to keep us off their discussion pages.
-
Just ask your questions. I suspect many of us on this discussion don't really want your snide asides.
-
Frankly Rob, I don't enjoy being called a liar and I'm tired of the way you bait people on this forum. Sort out your attitude, please.
It's sarcasm, a defense mechanism used by cynical smart asses to deflate feelings of incredulity and frustration.
what's it take to get a straight answer though Russell?
there would be no baiting if the answers were easily forthcoming.Dubmugga put forward a straightforward question which you have not addressed. Why?
No, they weren't.
were too,
-
login dropped off
on mac firefox the back button will take you to your full post just before you sent, don't know if this is the case for other operating systems or browsers, saved many a lost work in the past, and worth a try.
-
You know what, rob(bery)? Why don't you just say you're an artist who was denied funding by NZOA? I can't figure out any other good reason why you would be so invested in all this. What Brendan said on Media7 sounded perfectly obvious to me. NZOA is in the business of broadcasting. Therefore, any funding they give needs to have at least a reasonable amount of airplay to justify their investment. I understand that. My brother has, in the last couple of years, been the recipient of NZOA funding. Some would question that, but as it happens, in 2005, his group had great amounts of radio play. Whether or not you like the music that his group makes is irrelevant. They got airplay for a song that was funded entirely by themselves, they get NZOA funding because they had proven to be broadcastable. I certainly would agree that there isn't enough support for NZ artists from the mainstream media, and I don't know the ins and outs of the music business, so I'm not entirely qualified to talk about funding issues, but I do know this. New Zealand On Air is an agency to get New Zealand On Air. Simple enough. Their brief would be, I assume, to get return for any investment made. Why hold Smythe solely responsible for the complicated issues that seem to surround NZ musicians getting their music heard? Like I said, there can only be one reason a person would do that. FFS, if it's good enough for the very talented and lovely Samuel Scott, why isn't it good enough for you?
-
Why isn't it good enough for me?
because I'm an NZ music historian with a special interest in the politics of music. I've been paying attention to this kind of stuff for 25 years.
its got nothing to do with my personal track record with nz on air. It's to do with their track record in an important roll for arts, culture, and national identity.I don't know who your brother is or if I like or dislike his music, it really doesn't matter about my personal opinion on one specific act of funding. I'm not saying I dislike all things funded by nz on air, its not that simplistic.
It's a matter of policy and practice. So please refrain from bringing it down to "disgruntled musician didn't get funding". Its not about that at all believe me.
It's about a history of shutting out "our voice, our Culture" by radio that stretches back over 30 years, and that was supposed to be addressed by NZ on Air. Read their mission statement here.
In particular the line"NZ On Air's mission is to reflect and foster the development of New Zealand culture and identity through broadcasting"
The past 8-9 years has seen a history of mismanagement and misdirection that undermines the noble directives of the original plan, and as someone who cares about our rich musical history and takes some pride in our artists being praised overseas for our creativity and difference it can start to really piss you off when you watch, year after year the little money we do set aside for our culture and identity (which I read to mean our individuality, our difference) being wasted time and again. Great music that does get international recognition, more often than not did it on its own, which as Mr Flynn Scott graciously said isn't such a bad thing, because he's a gentleman, but ruder people might request some answerablity.
Why should my opinion matter? Cos I pay attention to these kind of things, I read the material, look at the websites and discuss the issues openly, in public, where it will get me black listed. Lets just say I'm invested in it, not cos I want funding for me, cos I think the money, what little their is should be spent wisely, to support and enhance the musicians brave enough to be themselves as it was originally intended, even though it doesn't fit commercial radio's narrow format.
I think they should scrap grants all together and use the money to find better ways of changing radio to fit us. The whole band recording quality aspect is moot now and was a red herring way back when radio bought it up as an excuse to avoid playing local content, and as mentioned videos can be creative and inventive on a zero budget too, if they have to be, .....
What hasn't changed are the gate keepers. 5 mill a year would do wonders to set up a youth radio network with no advertising and an open policy to all music nz. That idea was shut down under dubious circumstances (as mentioned in the media 7 article)
That's got to worry people don't you think?I hold brendan smyth responsible for the way the system is now because under his watch the team that makes funding decisions was changed to give the power to radio programmers, who up until that time were the people that had kept nz off air.
I am rude about it now firstly because brendan has a history of being snarky to people questioning his policy, and doing so in public, (on the radio nz yahoo discussion group where he took to swearing, even though swearing is cool, its not called for from government officials), and in private through personal emails. Recently I've seen some thinly veiled threats from him to other parties questioning policy. This is not cool, or called for.
He's done nothing to address his behavior, and nothing to address the issues raised regarding the roll of the arts funding he oversees.
and lets face it its been friggin' years while this has been going on. Patience has left the building. Nothing much has really changed. Simon, Sam and even Russell say commercial radio ain't really opening up much at all.I'm using my right to question our government, provoke discussion on it and draw attention to it. I'm also questioning media in general.
Russell has been asked nicely, then repeatedly to state his position on Brendan. He's avoided it. (is brendan smyth the man for our times) If Brendan can't answer this question then should he be commenting on this at all.If we're to take Russell at his word when he makes supportive comments re the system of funding then I think its only fair to know where he stands. open disclosure. Standard practice in Media, or it should be.
dubmugga asked a direct question back on friday midday, then it was mentioned again, and again, till the silence was deafening. That makes me feel ......unsettled.....
Why is it a difficult question, if one truly was of independent opinion.Why rag on Russell for that? He's seems a nice bloke etc, this is true, i'm not disputing that, but if you're going to position yourself as an authority and I think you'll agree Russell has through his media columns and advisory rolls he has accepted, then it's no longer a hobby, its politics, business. What Russell says does matter, purely because of where he's got himself. And I congratulate him for working hard to get there. Now be answerable.
Sam's opinion differs from mine regarding the impact that funding has had on our culture. If you think it has no effect what so ever then why even have it.
If you go back and read sam's posts he makes some observations re success of the scheme. I didn't read them as favorable so much as he was extolling the virtues of just getting things done yourself, as his band have done so well. Turn the other cheek, That's one way of looking at it, but it doesn't address the spending of govt money -
dubmugga asked a direct question back on friday midday, then it was mentioned again, and again, till the silence was deafening. That makes me feel ......unsettled.....
It was obviously terribly important to you Rob. The answer is yes, but I really didn't feel like being ordered around or hectored by you. It's actually quite depressing having you do this to yet another thread.
-
You know what, rob(bery)? Why don't you just say you're an artist who was denied funding by NZOA? I can't figure out any other good reason why you would be so invested in all this.
He has a small record company, but his day job is alienating people.
-
if you're going to position yourself as an authority
You keep saying this about Russell. I'm quite interested in what you think the 'legitimate' path to authoritativeness about New Zealand media is. Is there a course you can take at polytech? Can you write away for the bit of paper, like those 'ordained minister' mail-orders? Most importantly, which letters do you get after your name once you're 'qualified'?
(If we get to choose our own, once I get mine, I'd like to use KOATNZB [Knower of All Things New Zealand Media]. Or perhaps NZMB [New Zealand Media Badass].)
-
I'm using my right to question our government, provoke discussion on it and draw attention to it. I'm also questioning media in general.
And if you are concerned and are questioning policy ,as I suggested earlier,you could write to the Minister of Broadcasting.Although Dubmugga suggests the day could be saved by John Key ,Heh...Probably Country and Western. (now,now) ;-)
-
I've checked with the guys: I didn't misspell Brendan's name (phew), so it looks like his confirmation email (both when I tried to set it up and when he tried on his own from the same NZOA address) is being blocked by an overactive spam filter.
He has a board meeting to prepare for, but he's going to have another go, saving his text this time ...
-
(If we get to choose our own, once I get mine, I'd like to use KOATNZB [Knower of All Things New Zealand Media]. Or perhaps NZMB [New Zealand Media Badass].)
For that last one Danielle, I'd go with NZMBA, because people are going to first think it's an MBA, and then you get to disillusion them.
-
dubmugga asked a direct question back on friday midday, then it was mentioned again, and again, till the silence was deafening. That makes me feel ......unsettled.....
It was obviously terribly important to you Rob. The answer is yes, but I really didn't feel like being ordered around or hectored by you. It's actually quite depressing having you do this to yet another thread.
Cheer up Russell :)
I'd be keen to hear your reasons for thinknig BS is the man for these changing times ? I do hope it's not a case of the devil you know. Personally I just dont think he's got an exit strategy or a turnaround one but if so I'd love to hear it. I suspect more than likely any turnaround solution will come from somone outside the system and co opted from a sponsored fact finding workshop *yawn*.
More than likely though, perhaps he doesn't even think anything is wrong which would be even more disturbing. Surely someone as clever as him could have counterfactualised the current less than desirable scenario where radio and a select group determines who gets deemed worthy enough to inflict on the public at large and accountability to that public gets the big sidestep.
Im more interested in a performance based independent review and a change at the top if warranted. Theres a reason why american presidents can only serve 2 terms and entrenched bureaucrats are where the power is really at.
-
didn't feel like being ordered around or hectored by you
fair enough,
but his day job is alienating people.
:) that's pretty good.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.