Posts by robbery
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
How much would an alternative music-based (I prefer that term to "youth") station cost
I think the point is that it's free of commercial forces as much as possible. Remember the Bnet stations are commercial radio stations. they have full time staff who derive their income from the sale of advertising.
This wasn't the case some 25 ears ago when the bnets were university radio clubs staffed and funded entirely by volunteers. (and there are still volunteer components of those stations now, specialist shows etc)
When commerce comes into the equation then things start to get dirty. Decisions get made not based on merit but based on potential to create advertising revenue.
The youth radio network (or alternative network if you like) would like the BBC provide an art for artsake side step of those forces. That's something worth considering in this over commodified world. -
Your inability to answer a few simple questions about what you think the system should look like are conspicuous by their absence
give me a few mins won't ya :) some of us have got day jobs we should be doing.
pay me a government wage and I'll solve all your musical problems for you.
I think we disagree on what the problem is. I think its what nz on airs job was in the first place.
my solution for that is to go back to the original plan. get more of how we sound in our natural form on our airwaves.
funding decisions made by informed musical types, (chris knox did a good job when he was on the QEII arts council panel and he's not dead yet) and more effort put into the real problem of convincing or forcing commercial radio to play that which they really don't want to.Remember its never been that its bad music, its that its different, and nzers aren't going to be hurt by it.
sorry if I offended you by the naive comment. it wasn't meant personally.
-
We've all got choices but the overriding insentive is that if you want a crack at doing this for a living you better tow the commercial line
And so what are you proposing? Depositing taxpayer largesse on people who make music New Zealanders don't listen to?
nz on air was about making ourselves feel comfortable with or voice and our culture, because we didn't get to see and hear ourselves on our airwaves eonugh we felt cultural cringe when we did.
NZers on the whole don't listen to it cos they don't get to hear it, chicken and egg as that situation may be.
nz on airs job most definitely was not to change the face of who we are and what we sound like so we can fit commercial radios pre defined moulds, but that is what they have achieved to an extent.a lot of the credit NZ on air takes for the good changes that have occured in our perception of ourselves has actually happened as a result of others actions. Channel Z, student radio, independent record labels and lets not for get the bands themselves, good shirt, shihad etc that made it embaressing for a station not to know who they were cos they had such an impact on the live scene all before nz on air came into the game.
This picture is a lot more complicated than you might think,
-
that's a bit naive.
You use that word, but I don't think you know what it means.
in this case, simplistic, not aware of or not taking into account all the facts and factors.
-
The name of the organisation is NZ On Air. No point funding music that's not going to get played. That's their mandate.
that would be nz as in new zealand at the front of their name. no point in funding stuff that isn't like us.
part of their job was to lobby radio to get more nz stuff played,
they kinda found a way around the whole our voice our people thing by just pushing a voice that lives here kinda angle.
e minus, must try harder
-
Only if they choose to.
that's a bit naive.
We've all got choices but the overriding insentive is that if you want a crack at doing this for a living you better tow the commercial line and that commercial line is sound as much like what we already play as possible,
if you don't want to do that feel free to continue being poor and sooner or later having to devote less and less of your time to making music, till you completely stop. that's the message that is being sent. -
I thought Smyth was only messing up the musicical arts side of things. has he got his finger in the visual arts as well??
-
who's decision was it to let mainstream radio programmers pick who gets funding anyway?
of course they're going to pick all the easy 'soundslike what we already play' stuff. Which person who earns a nice government wage didn't see that one coming??
-
I'm kind of confused as to how it's destroying NZ music, though. I mean, you can play something different and be broke (like you could before) or play something more mainstream and be less broke (not so much before). It's not like anyone forces you to change your art (unless NZ On Air have firearms that I'm unaware of).
its because musicians now think "potential of rent cheque" when they sit down to write a song, as opposed to the hey day of kiwi music where they thought, 'not a hope in hell' just write what I feel.
While that is not NZ on Air's fault exactly I would suggest that it is actually their responsibility to consider such out comes.
What NZ on Air have done is criminally mismanaged the natural resource they were set up to encourage.
can you imagine the outcry if parks and recreation managed to wipe out indigenous wildlife in their attempts to make our national parks more accessible to the public.
them - "but there are nice concrete paths and benches to sit on"
us - "yeah, but its not New Zealand anymore"
them ".....oh,.... whoops....... "
Brendan Smyth hasn't done his job for almost ten years now and the result of the last ten years has been to fulfilled the letter of NZ on Air's goals (more new zealanders playing music on air) but not the intent (more of us feeling comfortable being who we are on air). There is not more of us being ourselves on NZ radio airwaves. simple as that.