Posts by robbery
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
thanks geoff, there's plenty more where that came from unfortunately,
I'd correct it but there's no edit function -
How about a hoodie and have him pictured tagging Clarks office. ;-)
you jest but someone on the team's probably weighing up the pro's and cons of that :)
taggers don't vote though. -
Key looks more like
its not what he looks like, its what his advisers will say will get him the most votes.
I'm hoping they go for some hip street sound that requires him to shoe horn himself into some ridiculous clothing, that would be rewarding. -
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) ;-)
drawing public attention to issues is also a good way of pushing for change. Asking for bureaucrats to be answerable is valid for their ability to answer the questions but more often than not these days avoiding discussion in the knowledge that people will just give up is the most efficient course of action. We're seeing that more and more these days, anyone noticed that?
as for john keys wouldn't his music taste be whatever his panel of advisers deem to be the most hip sounds around, or more likely the sounds that the biggest selection of dissatisfied voters might align themselves with? you might be right, country and western it is.
-
part of my day job is giving support to local artists, working with them in many facets of of music creation across multiple genres, a lot of it is pro bono, like Russell with his internet advice,
My critisms of NZ on air come from my experience in the music industry and open discussion with many of the key figures in it, who don't speak openly about it because it can and does sully their chances, as dubmugga also pointed out but I've seen and heard that effect for multiple people. Music people are on the whole quite humble people who do turn the other cheek. Which is why there is no real music quota, just a voluntary one, why no ones held any funding body accountable to their mission statement, why we don't have a performance based independent review (top idea) etc.
The label is a hobby project run by a music enthusiast nothing more.
The comments are from an informed and annoyed music historian, who does appreciate a good joke at his own expense every now an again. -
I'm quite interested in what you think the 'legitimate' path to authoritativeness about New Zealand media is.
Russell's path is as legitimate as anyone's my point is you can't get there and exclude yourself from difficult questions.
The whole Public Address thing is a media experiment and more so for Russell cos he's put his face out there more than anyone.PA gives the public a platform to discuss directly with the media issues connected with it. That's a pretty bold and interesting thing to set up.
The downside of that is it gives the public a platform to discuss directly with the media issues connected with it. They might make points you don't like, highlight mistakes or holes in what you've said or ask questions you don't want to answer.
you can avoid the questions and hope they go away, but you risk the possibility that some lippy bugger makes life difficult for you by repeatedly pushing a question you've avoided.Respect to Russell for sticking with the open speech part of the experiment though, he could easily disabled accounts etc, although I guess that wouldn't be in the openly embracing new technologies spirit.
-
didn't feel like being ordered around or hectored by you
fair enough,
but his day job is alienating people.
:) that's pretty good.
-
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 -
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.
-
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,