Posts by robbery
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
russell, re internet traffic limits
you have noted in a previous column are not the norm overseas. ie most plans in the US and Asia are open limit plans, usage is not an issue etc.Have you seen any figures quoted as to what it costs per meg of traffic to telecom for international traffic, this being the reason given for imposing limits on our internet usage and essentially stalling any progress for nz on things like streaming video and internet radio.
I'd be interested to know how much of $10 for 5 gigs extra actually goes toward the real cost of 5 gigs of traffic and what percentage is pure profit.
Telecom are perfectly capable of providing high speed internet but choose to imply that there just isn't the bandwith available and that it costs them greatly when people actually use the internet to its capacity, ie for more than just emails and web browsing.
Those who want to do that are charged pretty harshly.
-
excellent scoop on the androidss video russell. I remeber the show but have no idea who the presenter is. does that sound like a different version of the song to you? I'll have to dig out my copy and compare.
-
I think the difference in the post-2000 period was that you had years in which several acts went multi-platinum. I think Nesian Mystik's debut was about 65,000, Goldenhorse's about 45,000, Che Fu 30,000 and 50,000, Scribe 85,000. I think the Fat Freddy's album is past 100,000 now.
Remembering that an average big seller in nz was 50,000 for something like bruce springsteen at his mid period. anything near or above that is pretty impressive.
-
The problem, again, is that NZ On Air is a broadcast funding agency. Its targets are all about hours on radio, and things get tricky when it goes beyond that.
That reading of NZ on Airs function is where its problem lies, and it's Brendan Smyth's cop out excuse too.
Taken to its extreme if radio insisted on polka music and would play nothing else and NZ on Air funded only bands that played polka and generated many hours of radio from that funding would they be full filling their objectives.
It completely ignores the reason for setting up the scheme in the first place, and it is clearly written in their mission statement, although Smyth likes to ignore it. There is a strong cultural aspect to the scheme, our music, our culture, our voice. its in black and white, but Smyth on more than one occasion has state they make no cultural judgement which is in direct violation of the mission statement.
Funding Polka is not helping New Zealanders have their own voice and be comfortable hearing that voice.
Sure, its a difficult thing to do, as illustrated by many peoples inability to define NZ music, but there are plenty of people who are capable of having some perspective on that - Simon, Russell, Mr Knox, Muray Cammick, Karen Hay, Myself, and a swag of other long stay industry professionals all have a reasonable ability to distinguish the local voice from the imitators, just no one at NZ on Air which seems to be a style and taste free zone these days.This funding is not about any old music, we don't need any old music on our local airwaves, we need our voice, unmodified and that is what NZ on Airs job is, however they want to achieve it.
-
so bringing it back to the original point re Niel Finn's comment, do you think the govt is justified in taking credit for the successful 'turn around' of nz music (if that is infact what Helen Clark was doing).
There's no denying Labour under Clark is the most arts friendly govt we've had, but I'm still battling with the role some of the funding bodies have had in that equation. I still see NZ on Air's music program as seriously flawed, and take massive exception to them daring to take credit for things they had no part in and taking that credit off some very hardworking independent parites.That's also my understanding of Niel Finn's comment, but he should have been more specific. although I've not heard Helen Clark's reported longwinded speech so I don't know exactly what she said.
and yes the twin attach albums of the blams and mee mees did make it seem possible for local to deliver solid albums, although the reported costs of those puppies did scare a few, and even more brave when those things were undertaken without govt backing. that's something to be proud of, and why we're here discussing thse things I guess. Govt funding came about to help make thse things easier and it smarts pretty badly to see the system run into the ground as it is, run as some sort of payola scheme for drinking buddies.
-
no need to be defensive simon. the figures speak for themselves.
Stars in my eyes was the better production although I prefer some of the album tracks, which were all pretty good sound wise, but ignored of course.Feelers did over 80 k of their first album, not that I'm holding them up as a glowing example of classic kiwi rock at all, but they probably weaked the dam a bit.
Bic did better than that.
Selmonella dub did something like 35k of one of their albums I think,
and there were a lot of bands pulling half decent figures then,What do you think lead to the major change in attitude to embracing local music in the 90's? (up till Mr RIANZ made everyone hate it again) I think we agree it wasn't nz on air, and I don't even know if it was radio play so much.
There's no doubting that there was a lot of enthusiasm for NZ music in the early 80's as you've pointed out, lots of people going to local gig and buying local product but the visible attitude was one of cultural cringe, even if a large chunk of the population wasn't cringing at all. -
I'm not sure how that was new.....we sold close of 5000 copies of See Me Go in a week on release in 81; DD Smash were pulling huge crowds and selling more records in NZ than Shihad have ever done;
yeah thats true, gigs were well attended, but I don't think dd smash fans were as avid (or rabid) as shihad, we're also forgetting Bic Runga, Fur Patrol, and Feelers, They sold way more than anything that came before.
Channel z had a major impact in the non ak cities, mostly because their staff there got out and interacted. Not so much AK as you mentioned and as was demonstrated by the quick decline when they pulled the op back to just ak.
The big stick you are talking about is that re the frequency licences which are up for renewal soon?
how much of that was to do with nz on air though?
I mean you can't attribute hardly any of the late ninties kiwi explosion to funding, because that funding often came after the fact, and was pretty haphazzard, even more so now.I guess the other factors that contributed to the kiwi explosion were taste and timing. alternative became mainstream and kiwi does a good line in alternative. and quality jumped up substancially with the increased access locally to cheaper and better recording.
Screaming mee mee, bless them, didn't really cut it on see me go, although I firmly believe the blams did.
and commercial radio still had this cultural cringe thing to back them up in their decision to not play kiwi.
in the late 90's a lot of the offspring of the alternative crowd who had grown up familiar with their parents taste in local, began to get into live music too, and specifically targeted local. (as you mentioned a lot of people were going to see these bands, it just wasn't being relflected in what was aired on radio)Its interesting that helenstiens or glassons use of indie records from the 80's in their ads got every one smiling warmly, but not a single one of those tracks was ever played on air. now their part of our culture.
-
I agree with the helen clark admiration society vibe, but to credit labour completely with the turn around in radio play of kiwi music is to take away from the many other players who actually played a bigger part in it all.
That would be
- a few renegade radio people and their exceptional energy and effort - ie channel z who broke artists and made it easier for other stations to pick up on their programing innovation. They also created for a time a community vibe in the three main centres which swelled interest in locals sounds and they made their presence felt at concerts and funded school gigs by local acts. This of course fell to pieces when they centralised their operation out of Auckland only, but it was great while it lasted and was a very major factor in the ground swell support for sounds local. I've got a lot of admiration for people like melanie wise who knew what they were playing, were at the gigs and really did love the music they played.- key bands who just would not give up. Shihad, Goodshirt, etc who grew such a large and vocal fan base that it was frankly embarrassing for radio to not be aware of these acts.
- independent record labels, and their support crew who did the hard yards to promote these bands without assistance.
- Music fans who made themselves known.
all of these factors had practically nothing to do with government funding therefore the government is wrong to take credit for it, but they are right to take pride in it with the rest of us, and you are right, this government is the only one to acknowledge the importance of ART to our cultural well being, and I think Helen Clark is the major factor in that, but I don't share as much faith in the administrators of the plan. Frankly I think its been hijacked and derailed.
-
all the admin, managerial, programming advertising, production people are paid, don't know about on air. key slot members will be.
-
And back to the original point re Neil Finns comment about Helen Clark taking credit, he does have a point if he was referring to nz on air taking credit for the decline in cultural cringe when the phrase New Zealand is placed in front of an art form.
NZ on Air better back that up with flow diagrams showing how their funding of certain acts has created a positive response, cos last time I checked ( and I check very regularly) there were a large number of other forces that bought about that change, and NZ on Air was way down on the list.
Helen Clark can however take pride in our music, just like anyone else and I think that's perhaps what she was doing. As someone else mentioned in a very John Stewart way, prior to Labour celebrating and supporting NZ music art consisted of photographing an artist with some all blacks. I think Labour's intent is good, and that is directly related to Helen Clark, but that intent has been severely diluted by less than music savvy drones. It's been a long time since a discerning music taste master has been anywhere near the process.
Finns point is well made, but perhaps not quite specific enough.