Posts by robbery
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
sigh ... they were named and quoted in the booklets that came with the discs. I'm surprised a music historian wouldn't know that.
That's the best thing you can think to attack me on? I made some very valid and serious observations and all you can come up with is a sigh and 'I thought you would have read the cd sleeves and memorised them"
I'll go have a look, thanks for mentioning it. I doubt any mainstream programmer green lit some of those tracks, at least not the same mainstream programmers who routinely shut them down now.
look at it this way, as much as you hate what I have to say and the way I say it there's a swag on new information that we have not had in this thread.
Brendan admitted he was not directed by the act to give programmers power, that they pick the hit disc tracks now (assisted by radio), that their prime directive is culture and identity etc etc.
and your mention of disc covers, have you seen the new redesign?
There are no track listings on the outside of the cover. If you've got the disc in the player and want to know what track 10 is you have to either eject the dic and read it on the label or pull the booklet out of the slimline tray and locate it inside the sleeve. Slim line booklets being much more irritating to slide in and out.
They do however have a giant NZ on air logo on the outward facing page in the booklet, where customarily you would have the tracklistings for easy access, and I would have thought easy access was way up on the list so as not to piss off programmers delicate sensibilities. That's a free pointer for the hitdisc people. -
lecturing people on net etiquette
I didn't 'lecture' him on that point. I lectured him on the failings of hi system and his closed mind,
I mentioned as a ps at the end that in his in his effort to write an essay over the course of a week when he lost his homework once and delayed discussion and participation that you break it up into relevant spiels, if you can. a suggestion, the rest was a lecture,
thanks auntie jackie, for your concern.
you didn't notice anything else except for that. You think I had no other valid points to make? Good think you're not THE jackie clark of idol shame. -
.
• 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"
-
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?
-
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.
-
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. -
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.
-
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. -
Monte Video anyone?
-
nostalgic, of course,
sorry, geoff, I'll try to keep a better eye on my spelling.