Hard News: "Creative" and "Flexible"
679 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 … 28 Newer→ Last
-
You mean to make their music videos?
-
K. NatRad did a six-part doco on Zappa recently, The Radio is Broken. It was good to hear a locally-made but not locally-sourced programme. I guess it was made for the export market but still, it was nice to hear an international programme and one about contemporary music.
NarRad, where you can be 16 years dead and still "contemporary".
-
To be fair, the actual contemporary music programmes, on Saturday afternoons, are generally very good, and very contemporary.
-
On a personal note. I prefer my radio with pictures, reading peoples opinions, watching interviews live and making my own music selections in the car...
...in short, FUCK RADIO !!!
It's all about teh interwebz and i'd wager teh yoofs feel the same way, unless they can win a free cd or concert tickets...
...and while i'm in fuck you mode, i'd like to add NZoA and Creative NZ music funding to the list
thanx for your time :)
-
To be fair, the actual contemporary music programmes, on Saturday afternoons, are generally very good, and very contemporary.
So they are. Much as I admire Zappa, he's very much an historical figure. Experienced him live in 1973, not easily forgotten, but comtemporary? No way.
-
Well, yeah, basically. I mean, some NZ music gets money from the government through a different structure than NZ art music, so looking at one structure is fundamentally unfair and biased.
-
I'd welcome a reference that compares public funding and other support per creator/performer/group/genre/industry and outlines the characteristics of their audiences both local and international.
-
I'd welcome written reasons why some creator/performer/group/genre/industry are deserving of funding and others not, by the people that choose who gets funded.
-
Experienced him live in 1973, not easily forgotten, but comtemporary? No way.
Contemporary (note spelling) means post 1975, in classical terms; and before anyone says "Zappa wasn't a classical musician," that person should consider the works for orchestra he wrote.
-
Just another pat on the back for Richard Hulse for the web work at RNZ. I've been fairly critical of the streaming service in the past but the current offering is light years ahead and is especially appreciated now that I live overseas. Well done to all involved.
-
Yes, RNZ online serive is often sited on PAS and greatly appreciated in general as simply the best.
-
The rest of the broadcaster's revenue, $3,818,000, is earned from interest, fees for co-location on its transmission high-sites and other sources. It's a small but significant point, because it dispels the idea that Radio New Zealand is some passive funding sink that wouldn't know how to earn a dollar if it tried. It generates millions of dollars in earned revenue a year and has done for a long time.
How much of this is interest earned on their funding, cf RNZ knowing how to earn a dollar?
I looked at their accounts but didnt see a breakdown (but accounts are pretty much greek to me)
-
And if you'd like to replace Telecom as the key sponsor of the film festivals, Bill Gosden would love to schmooze. :)
Speaking of the festival, the cinephile-enraging choice of Death at a Funeral as the opening night film when Gosden took a sabbatical is an illustration of the potential perils of arts sponsorship. This from Peter Calder's review of Death at a Funeral:
The choice of Michael Haneke's brilliant, boundary-stretching Hidden as the opening-night film for the 2005 film festival was not universally approved. The sponsors wanted a good night out for their corporate guests, not some creepy psychological thriller that challenged, among many other things, the very process of cinema-going.
One assumes there were no complaints about last year's choice, this English farce aimed squarely at those who hardly ever go to - and probably don't much like - the movies.
-
Nice...
-
From this morning's Herald editorial:
The quality of Radio NZ's service will be compromised for a minor monetary gain at a time when the broadcaster says audiences are at an all-time high. In other areas, substantial money could be saved without the public noticing very much difference at all. But that would require a far greater show of Government resolve.
-
Good editorial. The Nats can look tough and decisive by bullying RNZ but are too scared to make major cuts elsewhere.
-
Speaking of the festival, the cinephile-enraging choice of Death at a Funeral as the opening night film when Gosden took a sabbatical is an illustration of the potential perils of arts sponsorship. This from Peter Calder's review of Death at a Funeral:
In Wellington, "Eagle vs. Shark" was the opening night film -- hardly crowd-pleasing.
That said, I have a soft spot for "Death at a Funeral". It reminds me of the night I sat in the Embassy and watched 3 films in a row ("Once" and "Beautiful Creature" were the others). Neil LaBute (!) is helming the US remake.
-
From this morning's Herald editorial:
Russell: It is a contractual obligation for NZ Herald editorial writers to have no sense of irony or shame whatsoever? I wouldn't mind APN showing the resolve to make the only daily newspaper in New Zealand's largest media market fit for more than long-drop arse-wiping, but I won't hold my breath waiting.
-
Neil LaBute (!) is helming the US remake.
Great. If The Wicker Man and Possession are anything to go by, it's sure to be even worse than the original.
In Wellington, "Eagle vs. Shark" was the opening night film -- hardly crowd-pleasing.
Joking, surely. Eagle vs Shark at the Embassy would be as crowd-pleasing as Nirvana doing a comeback show in Seattle.
-
Eagle vs Shark at the Embassy would be as crowd-pleasing as Nirvana doing a comeback show in Seattle.
Probably... although that film annoyed me in about 15 different ways. And I truly wanted to like it.
-
That said, I have a soft spot for "Death at a Funeral". It reminds me of the night I sat in the Embassy and watched 3 films in a row ("Once" and "Beautiful Creature" were the others). Neil LaBute (!) is helming the US remake.
And just to add insult to injury, it's going all black -- which means you can enjoy your homophobic dwarf gags with added racism and 'ethnic' colour. (I fully expect La Bute to bring his compulsive misogyny to the table as well.) Yay!
The only question I have is whether this is going to be as painful as Chris Rock's ham-fisted 'Americanised' black-face remake of Eric Rohmer's delicious L'Amour l'après-midi. -
Dear Lord. Yes, people with money and access to posh CD stores probably don't have much of a need for Radio New Zealand Concert. And they should be our sole constituency.
That is of course an argument you could make for any sort of music. People with money and access to iTunes probably don't need that ad-free hip hop station that the government never would fund.
And I suspect that concert station listeners will not reflect the NZ population in that they will tend to be whiter, older, and better off financially.
In simple terms, if you're allergic to the free ice cream that's kindly being dispensed to all citizens, then by all means demand that some excellent sorbet be served alongside the dairy treats. Slashing the tires on the cultural ice cream truck is, well, barbaric.
I don't think many people are saying it should be gone by lunch time. Just that there doesn't seem to be a valid argument why it shouldn't sell advertising or sponsorship to try and cover some of its costs.
My point is that I'm really sorry that Beethoven was German, and that he wrote pieces that go on a bit and are difficult to interrupt with ads.
I'm not sure if "there might have to be a fair bit of music between adverts" prevents people selling the adverts.
It's about values and principles, not about whether a thin wedge here or there is OK because I personally don't need/use it.
I fail to see a principle in "we should be able to listen to concert radio without adverts/sponsorship". Maybe there's a principle in "we should defend cultural institutions", but I don't believe we're really debating that it should be scrapped (except Danyl), just that it can probably cover a some of its costs in the traditional manner of most radio stations.
It could continue to receive strong government support, particularly if it plays lots of NZ music, and has an important role in our society that the market can't provide.
With the movements broken up into segments, at YouTube audio quality?
I'll stay with FM radio, thanks.And I'd love to see the Pixies live next month, but sadly money doesn't allow. I'll watch their live work on youtube though and be happy that it's up there.
It's of the nature of our society that people with money get quality - I'd love to have Sky TV which is about the only way that I could get to see Olympics hockey, because Prime sucks and keeps cancelling it to show figure skating, but I just have to deal with the fact that I don't have the money for it.
I'm not sure why concert music should be any different. The fact that much of it is out of copyright and therefore can be placed on the internet for free - in high or low quality - is an advantage over contemporary music.
-
The quality of Radio NZ's service will be compromised for a minor monetary gain at a time when the broadcaster says audiences are at an all-time high.
I can't help thinking that RNZ's success with such high audiences is a BIG target for private stations to take aim at.
They might be saying: "Why should tax payers money be starving us of advertising revenue?"
So lets get stuck into them.
-
I'm quite surprised that Danyl's almost throwaway aside that the Concert program needs to defend itself or at least address the strange imbalance in favor of the old music of one subcontinent has formed most of the discussion on this topic. The power of a controversial statement to dominate discourse demonstrated once again.
I doubt this is the piece that the Nats want to cut. It seems more likely that the 'creative and flexible' rhetoric is more likely to simply be about how the existing operation can cost less and deliver more. If I know my Nats, their answer to their own self-imposed crisis will be that their own people managing the place is really what is needed, and that's about all that will change. One of their people will come in, and become a strong advocate for keeping their new empire as large as they can, and business will continue as usual, but the suits will be a bit bluer. It will probably be forgotten or ignored that this process itself will account for the majority of new costs, because a more creative and flexible radio station will borrow money to cover the shortfall.
-
The power of a controversial statement to dominate discourse demonstrated once again.
Not to mention how the liberal Left in this country has bought pretty much wholesale the neoconservative arguments about trimming the fat and using the market to support anything that moves. There simply isn't a money crisis. They're cutting their own taxes! But apparently we should just allow advertising into our public radios, or even suggest to can one of them ourselves, to pay for their privilege. Unbelievable really.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.