Posts by kevin russell
-
what I see as fairly narrow and rather indefinable, cultural approach.
But isn't this just you putting what you want to see in funding over a pre-existing funding strategy. Surely what NZ on Air does should be controlled by the reason it was set up and the issues it was set up to address.
There's no arguing that a lot of what nz on air has done that is outside of its set tasks such as funding albums and delving into international promotion, slipping funds into a difficult industry etc, are good for nz but are they the tasks it's supposed to be addressing? By the content of the Broadcasting Act obviously not, and you're right Simon the govt could look at the bigger picture and address other issues, but does that come under NZ on Air's mandate?
Maybe there should be a commission for distributing funds to the music industry (Music industry Commission anyone?), yes, we've got one of those already. You've got to always bring it back to NZ on Air's job, which is to secure broadcasting for NZ culture and identity content. Has that job been achieve yet? Maybe we don't need NZ on Air at all any more?
-
Come on Russell. That's hardly fair. Chris Caddick got paid a fair whack to do his report and they're not the same thing.
Mayes' paper is more a discussion piece raising points and issues to keep in mind while looking for a solution. I don't read it as saying it has the solutions to all problems but that there are a lot more things to think about than what we usually take into consideration.
It moves the focus away from a feeding frenzy for content funding to a focus on the primary role, broadcasting nz content. Shouldn't that be what it's all about. The whole content funding free-for-all came about from the request to up the quality of said content. That's pretty much up there now, so shouldn't all those resources be directed toward solving the monkey puzzle of changing the broadcasting landscape?Archiving and keeping it current and available is a perfect use of the broadcasting commissions time an resources. It actually specifies it as a goal in the broadcasting act, right under producing content on demand in section 36.
The hit discs could be seen as a contribution toward this goal, but that's not enough considering how much of the musical past is currently unavailable or difficult to get. -
Where's my invitation?
you must be under 'etc' Simon.
The point seems to be a broad representation of nzers involved in music creation, a point that Caddick also reflected as being seen as essential by polled NZers., and there seems to be no attempt to represent that list as definitive or anything more than off the top of one's head, -
I understand what you're saying, but you're proposing that a committee of academics should decide what commercial pop radio plays.
No I'm not, I'm saying it's a possible consideration, if suitable people actually exist, and I don't know if they do. It's only logical to get someone who understands the full implications of the landscape. It's a possible consideration and one that couldn't be worse than running it through 2 overseas owned radio chains.
-
Broadcast funding that doesn’t get things broadcast
Which is why you strengthen the channels that are not historically and logically opposed to the interests of the country's culture.
Does broadcasting on RNZ not count all of a sudden? If you expand the reach and scope of the national radio network doesn't that achieve the aims better than this bottomless pit of funding content. Does content funding really need to be the central focus of the organisation? Surely it's content broadcasting that is the aim?The current course of action by NZ on Air seems to be driven by how they have chosen to measure success. Surely that needs to be looked at too? Is a commercial hit really a cultural success? Monte Video anyone?
-
And it's a good question. How would you answer it?
It is a good question and not an easy one at that, but it is a question that needs to be address, and there is, if not a narrow defined answer, at least a broadly definable one which needs to be addressed if that is the target of your efforts.
I guess firstly it would be defined by the people of nz, how they see themselves.
It could also partly be defined by how others see us, so what do foreigners say when you ask them what New Zealand music sounds like. Lastly possibly some sort of academic background in the identification of Culture, what it is where it's been, and where it's going. I don't know if there are people actively studying and writing papers on that with reference to modern 'pop music' but that would be some sort of consideration. Graeme Downes possibly?
The point would be to make sure you're addressing at least some of the bases identified by NZers, Foreign perceptions and academic analysis, but what I wouldn't do is ask a guy who's job it is to sell ads what it was.Getting it played is another matter altogether and a job that seems to get sidelined in the rush to get and give out money. It's all about broadcasting after all.
-
But the idea that it was better in the old days can’t really be sustained on the facts.
I can't see that stated anywhere. Why did you substitute in the word better when no one had said it? I think the implication was that in essence not that much has changed as far as what NZ commercial Radio will accept on their play lists. If it fits the format which is predominantly overseas styled it has a chance, if it's outside of that it doesn't.
-
No, I'm not pretending.
although I suppose it depends on how you define “New Zealand’s musical culture”
kind of invalidates the rant.
-
And yet the paper is full of unsupported and unsustainable statements like that.
@ simon
The NZ singles that do so well on the airwaves, with honourable exceptions such as Smashproof, are soundalike (and very dated soundalike to be more ruthless) versions of things that radio liked to add from abroad and do the industry no favours in the longer term.
@ Russell
I think the idea that there has been no progress at all in “get-ting more of New Zealand’s musical culture on air” in 20 years is absurd, although I suppose it depends on how you define “New Zealand’s musical culture”.
So are you just pretending to not understand the finer details of the original point
4) Seek alternatives.
Commercial radio has been indifferent to the objective of getting more of New Zealand’s musical culture on air. 20 years and many millions of dollars have got us essentially no closer to expanding their scope. Perhaps it’s time to acknowledge this and seek alternatives to achieving the same goal.Commercial Radio doesn't want to change. They don't want to expand their play lists, and they don't, with the odd rare exception. Why pretend any different. 25 years ago we had Dragon Golden Harvest, Space Waltz and Split Enz on our commercial airwaves, in prime time.
as Simon says, now we get predominantly artists chosen for their ability to sound like something already on the play list. is that really as much of a progression as you'd have us believe?
-
re channel z
Unfortunately, not very many people actually listened to it;
I think you'll find the Wellington and Christchurch stations had very different results to the Auckland one.
Re Radio NZ appealing to youth, haha, excellent. Only an old person would think they do. Youth want their own station to identify with. They don't want to listen to the odd show aimed at their parents who are desperately trying to keep their finger on the pulse. How out of touch can you be?
A Radio NZ station aimed at youth culture is a fantastic idea, but you wouldn't expect to hear the industry back it because it challenges their strangle hold on that market.
And Upston's work is great, but how bout a regularly funded show like the peel sessions. Now that really would do some good (and we know this because of the impact it had on the British scene).
Reminds me of the joke.
How many social workers does it take to change a light bulb?
Just one, but the light bulb has got to want to change.
One gets the feeling this light bulb doesn't want to change at all.