Hard News: Friday Music: Good ideas and grumbles
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last
Gareth Swain, in reply to
the death of nzmusic.com
Yeah, I've always wondered what the story was about the very sudden decline of NZMusic.com.
One day there were a bunch of us yapping away in the forums, and then suddenly the format changed and you couldn't find anything, and everyone just left.
Was it a change of management, or what? It just seemed to stop dead in its tracks.
chris, in reply to
I am pretty confident taking just ONE months funding from NZOA
I have confidence you could pull something like that off too Ian. That would be deliciously ironic given NZOA’s mandate is in part to desocialise, ie. to capitalise on and encourage the trend for staying at home or in the car and being delivered our carefully selected ration of NZ culture via electronic boxes. Certainly (if there’s not one already), there is ample room beyond the Arts Council for a dedicated organization: NZL – New Zealand Live, to encourage people to get back outdoors and amongst one another, it’d probably be a very positive thing for the society as a whole. Alternatively there could also be alternative non-governmental sponsors to potentially tap – soft drinks, food, fashion, transport, telecommunication/ energy providers etc.
Sacha, in reply to
and they all inhaled
anyone ever wondered what is right with the local music scene?
I'd go out on a limb and suggest its in possibly the best shape its ever been, in my lifetime at least - could be a future topic for discussion to temper some of the negativity and angst
A tweet by Aaron Hawkins gives me an idea:
In the spirit of celebrating small victories, getting a bunch of @FishriderNZ tunes put up as DCC hold music cc @southernscoop
There's a lot music out there, and by now we're all entirely sick of Nature's Best (if we weren't within weeks or months). Is there any attempt from NZ labels like Arch Hill or Flying Nun to give their music to the people in this format? Hold music is hardly glamorous, but it is a source of revenue.
Russell Brown, in reply to
Is there any attempt from NZ labels like Arch Hill or Flying Nun to give their music to the people in this format? Hold music is hardly glamorous, but it is a source of revenue.
Aaron told me he approached Flying Nun about it but never got a reply.
Quotas are weak. Ok in us they play 80% local content or whatever. Cos that's what the audience wants! Our people probably want a big chunk of us music too. 25 per cent nz music on the radio would be a tremendous turn off. There are not that many good kiwi songs.
Do commercial stations have to adhere to these strictures? I can hardly believe it. It's like I'm having a BBQ in New Plymouth and I'm told 20 percent of the music must be from taranaki. Get a life.
25 per cent nz music on the radio would be a tremendous turn off. There are not that many good kiwi songs.
Thank's for you input Neil.
But I do agree with some other explanations; my last experience (The National) of standing around impatiently on a sticky plastic sheet for 2 hours waiting for the band to deign to join us has rather put me off live music.
A number of people have touched on this, but I think it bears repeating. The difference between listening to live music in NZ and, say, London, is phenomenal. I can't stand the lackadaisical "doors open at 7; band shows up whenever" approach in NZ. It's exclusive, complacent, and basically contemptuous towards the audience. In London, however, noise ordinances mean that live gigs have to be over by 11 pm. The support act comes on at 8.30 sharp, the main act about 9.30, and everyone gets out with enough time to catch the tube and be home by midnight. The result? Gigs are a hell of a lot less grueling to attend in London. I also love how bands actually apologize -- profusely! -- if they're running a bit late.
It's a cultural thing, sure, but also a good example of how gig-going cultures are a product of their local regulatory environments, which then go on to shape audience expectations. No Londoner would tolerate NZ gig culture and neither, frankly, should New Zealanders.
linger, in reply to
not that many good kiwi songs
Compared to what?
On one (trivial) level, this is predictable simply by applying Sturgeon’s Law: 90% of music is (subjectively, for a given individual listener) crap.
It follows that there will be much more non-crap music in total coming from a source that provides much more music in total (e.g. US or UK, as compared with little ol’ NZ).
However, music that speaks to a NZ listener in a NZ social/cultural context will be much more likely to come from a NZ source. So if that is one of your criteria for non-crapness, then a higher proportion of NZ music will be non-crap (subjectively, for a given NZ individual listener). Conversely, if you want to seek out non-NZ music, then you will have to wade through a lot more crap to get to stuff you like.
So … did you want to make a serious point about the relative quality of NZ music? Or are you just going through the motions?
Simon Grigg, in reply to
There are not that many good kiwi songs.
Doing AudioCulture I get the odd person who asks me "Have you finished it yet?" I guess you are one of those people Neil.
Neil Drinkwater, in reply to
Sorry, did not mean to offend. Have not had as much experience chatting on internet as u guys. When I said not that many good kiwi songs I meant " not THAT many good kiwi songs" - relating to the huge quota percentage. I am only acting as a spokesperson for myself here. I can understand a nz musician would want to make it compulsory for the government to tell the public what to listen to because they would make money from that.
Maybe the general public would prefer 25 percent of all music they hear to be from nz. You could get an idea fro data mining everyone's spotify and YouTube choices.
bob daktari, in reply to
there is currently voluntary code that the radio broadcasters signed with govt to play 20% local content - this has been in practice for a long time now and the results have shown a huge increase in local music being played on local radio - which hasn't been detrimental to those commercial stations profits nor freedom to programme the stations as they wish (other than include local music they deem suitable to their station). Obviously this has been beneficial for the local music market. Prior to the introduction of the voluntary quota commercial stations averaged about 2% local music.
How many kiwi songs are THAT good is entirely subjective... the facts maintain that radio can and does play local music and their audiences haven't run away screaming... and as a result of radio play there are more local musicians making the sort of music different stations play - create demand and someone will rise to the challenge.
Of course no one is dictating what the public listen to - there has never been a time like today where individuals have more choice as to what they subject their ears to and how they choose to do so.
Generally speaking we are (and have been) an importer of musical culture - that tends to be dominated by the USA, currently (a huge exporter of culture) - I don't know about you Neil, but I'm a kiwi, a New Zealander and am very proud of our culture and think our locally produced music is world class and generally bloody great - its just a matter of finding that which appeals to your ears and radio play and support is a crucial part of people being able to do that (same goes for TV, film, fine arts, language and all them other elements of culture)
The general public want to hear songs that appeal to them - some of those songs logically would be from here, for who else but kiwis can sing in our voice(s) about our country
You can't measure what people prefer by examining what they have previously been allowed access to. Local content quotas work which is why other countries have used them.
Post your response…
You may also create an account or retrieve your password.