Posts by robbery
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
come on kyle, don't be like that
-
New Zealand Music Topic + robbery = Thread of Eternal Life
:)
did I get the record for longest thread?
The drm one has to be a contender -
be a dick
dude, got to calm down.
I have no idea what your feeling are on disaster relief, and I really don't care cos I wasn't talking about it, I was using the scenario to illustration by example, I was taking the criteria of funding nz music and using a similar scenario to illustrate it and look on it from a different angle.
personally I thought you were being over combative, but hey, its the internet, its not like it matters so I'm hardly going to call you a dick.so, have a go at answering my question on the objective of funding music. I was actually interested in your slant on how you view the origination of the scheme. cos you're not alone in your view. I don't share it but plenty of other people do.
There are those that are passionate about music and what it means to then and there a plenty of people who it doesn't really have great importance for. I'm not going to critise you for your stance, everyone's different. be nice if you extended me the same courtiousyin a non combative way.
-
eh? Stay on topic.
ok, noted, kyle can't handle lateral thinking.
-
question for you kyle
what do you think is the objective of funding music?
is it an employment thing, getting kiwi's employed in the music industry?
is it a cultural thing, art and heritage etc?
if you think its an employment thing why not pick any other industry and fund that, like automotive production? its all kiwi's in work isn't it. why does it have to be music if there is no cultural benefit? -
A few typos in that last one.
tell me about it,
is it ok for that money to be used by noN affected people?
They're people and theY'RE benefiting from the money just like a homeless and hungry disaster victim would. by your reckoning that's a good result and everything is ok. -
Surely the 2% figure is pretty clear indication that NZ music wasn't making it in the commercial market, and now, in the NZ on Air environment, it's doing a lot better.
firstly you're assuming that that 20% is made up predominantly of music nz on air funded, and that nz on air created the environment which it occurred in.
There were and are a lot of factors at play which I have addressed in a previous post.
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.
there has been no independent review to ascertain the effectiveness on NZ on Air, all we know for sure is nz on air existed across the time that local play of nz content rose. As Simon points out we also don't know the true meaning of that 20% figure, what genres, what stations, etc.
secondly you're inferring money designated for a specific role can be used in similar ways with similar results and be right.
apply that philosophy to say victims of a natural disaster.
govt puts aid money toward helping those victims.Then a bunch of people who weren't affected by the disaster move into the area and start consuming the aid.
is it ok for that money to be used by no affected people?
They're people and their benefiting from the money just like a homeless and hungry disaster victim would. by your reckoning thats a good result and everything is ok.
The 2 key points are- music that WOULD Not otherwise be funded in a commercial environment
- to reflect and foster the development of New Zealand culture and identity
that's what the money is for. written clearly on their website.
if the money is used to fund already successful bands then obviously that is a direct contravention of the guide lines.
That takes a whole lot of successful applicants out of the pool and frees up a lot of money to aid lower rung acts.It appears that nz on air have been trying to boost their apparent success by pinning their logo to already successful acts to make them selves look good.I've actually read a statement by Dolf Datsun that says they were approached by nz on air well after they became an international success and asked to apply for funding.
kinda weird don't you think. why go fishing for acts that aren't looking for your help?
-
I don't get why you think that 'mainstream music' that gets played on commercial radio doesn't deserve the support of NZ on Air.
Because it says clearly in the nz on air charter that
NZ On Air will allocate funding so that programmes and broadcasts that wouldn't otherwise be made in a commercial market can be produced.
I've given this quote and the link some way back but I'll give it to you again.NZ On Air's Principles and Criteria
That's a pretty crucial point. it also addresses the critisms of cronnyism, of the same people getting grant after grant.
surely commercial radio pap is way down on the list of people nz on air is set up to aid.
that one point is enough to cause concern, let alone deal with the more complex nature of culture and identity and what is or isn't us.
-
is brendan actually going to participate in a debate or just dump a bunch of sound bites on us. I thought he said he was up for discussion?
he wouldn't lie to us would he?
-
brendan said
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.
You said:
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.
actually kyle I gotta address this one more time.
they actually do make no effort to address all the colours of the coat in that they don't attempt to identify different genres and make sure each is represented. the only criteria is that its a kiwi playing it.
That system is prone to bias because it doesn't recognise that music is different.
it also doesn't recognise the kiwiness of music.
how do you do that?
Well if a foreigner can listen to a song on a radio overseas and say it sounds like a kiwi band then there must be something to the concept of our national identity.Simon, can you identify qualities of new zealandness in some of our music? you don't have to be specific but does certain stuff sound like us and no one else?
accent would also have something to do with it, and local references, ie not low rider drive by, but possibly pukekos (bats), dominion road (that guy with the no depression song), sjd had some nice ones etc etc,