Posts by robbery
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
ps I realise the ratio is actual less than 1/6 to 5/6 but I was being generous
-
OK, read before posting. I didn't say 'half of what is spent'. I said, 'half of what he said'.
oh n, believe me I hang on every word you say, read them over and over again, treasure them,
you words imply that nz on air are getting it half right. that I'm ignoring half of the good work. its 800,000 out of a budget of over 5 mill.
I acknowledged this was important, and then focused on the glaring 4/5ths of a wasted time.so really what you statement should have said was
Again, you're taking 4/5 of what he said (commercial radio), and viewing it in isolation from the other 1/5 (national radio, bnet, kiwi radio). Clearly commercial radio is the focus for the stuff commercial radio will play. There's the other 4/5 of the story for the stuff they won't play.
I still stand by what I imply though, the way the system is run they marginalise the supporters and piss cash away on a brick wall. thats the net effect, be it a 1/5 to 4/5 ratio.
-
I'm happily on the edge looking in.
you've got an unnatural interest, and admiration for the big business machinations of major labels and chart ticklers. are you sure you're not a closet suit-wearer?
-
Or do you really all believe that NZ music is superior? is the propaganda working?
not necessarily superior but more relevant to us than say a song about drive by shootings in the ghetto.
luckily for those who are well versed in local content there's some pretty great music that has been made in this country and many overseas people are aware of it, some of it quite groundbreaking, probably bought on by our isolation.
The issue nz on air was trying to address is that we as a nation didn't get to see or hear ourselves on air, what we looked and sounded like. our self image and sense of identity suffered because of this and so some sociology graduate thought it was important that we had a better sense of ourselves so decided to address commercial radio's main objection to our music, that the quality wasn't good enough, so throw some cash at it and problem fixed, right? apparently not. -
The reason they work a lot with mainstream commercial music stations, is that that's what most NZers listen to, and that's the music that most NZers like. That's not being narrow, that's being relevant.
actually nzers exposed to their own music don't hate it as much as programmers think they might, as highlighted by the large number of local hit records that have received absolutely no airplay, as mentioned by simon.
-
Isnt that the problem with the music (and movie) industry worldwide? lowest common denominator, play the safe card, forget that the real winners both creatively and financially come from a place of innovation and artistic passion!
agreed, but its not a prime objective of the charter to provide quality content, its a spin off of its prime objective to provide local content, reflecting our culture and identity, ie people creating music to reflect themselves, which since its not manufactured to maximise ad sales hits at a higher level content wise, in theory.
-
Would rather Brendan pretended his current favourite album was Opshop, as John Banks did recently?
would I rather?
I'd rather the head of nz music funding had a love of local content enough to rate it right up there. whether that be opshop or one of dubmuggas mates discs,
It was a small point I noticed when I re read the issue recently, It just struck me as strange that someone who's role is promotion of kiwi took the opportunity to pick something else. he was chosen for an interview because of his nz on air role, not because he was a world authority.
anyway, its hardly the biggest crime in the list, but adds detail.I'm still focusing on the blatant disregard for the nz on air charter.
It's like a bus driver deciding his own route and destination.This isn't brendan's personal ipod, what he thinks, he works for a corp that represents our country.
accountability and independent review. should have been there all along -
You're taking half of what he said
Where'd u get this figure of half from.
the lions share is aimed at commercial radio, because their the biggest no show. I don't even mind that, although another way of looking at the same problem would be to strengthen the support already given.but playing the game by commercial radio's rules not the answer to nz cultures problems. can we agree on that at least?
-
Brendan was quite clear that they're about getting all NZ music on air.
really?, I thought he was quite clear that his focus was that which fits commercial radios predefined formats. that's not all NZ music at all, and one might argue that a lot of the music they push had to be "manufactured" fit, there by making it not about culture and identity( ie who we really are), but about marketing (who we think they want us to be in order to sell ads)
The statement "so you make no effort to reflect all the colours of that coat", clearly isn't true,
ok, I'll amend that to read you make token effort, little effort, focus your attentions on that which has to be invented anew to fit criteria.
Thanks for keeping me honest, what's your email, i'll get you to proof my posts in future :)
-
ok, fair call, but I do have an issue with the hammer and tongs approach and I'm also broadly supportive of what NZoA has done historically and in particular Brendan. That's a fairly major point of difference
noted and understood ,but you also realise I didn't get my bashing implements out till years of marginalisation and indifference from smyth and his team, and it hasn't always been that way, but its that way now.
A key point is I d not say these things to benefit my own musical aspirations, I don't think I've said anything in my comments that put a personal slant on it for me and I've kept who I am and what I do out of it, even though you and russell know me, its not about us.I think I've read your recent comments to be broadly critical of NZ on Air implementation too, just privately,
I think the concept is good, the implementation is flawed and refused to acknowledge it or hear critism.
i also want brendan to pay back 5 years of salary and write a public aplogy for getting it wrong, but you're probably not going to back me on that one are you :)
did I say that out loud?