Posts by Kyle Matthews
-
you words imply that nz on air are getting it half right. that I'm ignoring half of the good work. its 800,000 out of a budget of over 5 mill.
No my words don't imply that at all. As I keep saying, if you're going to attack NZ on air for not addressing the types of music that 'commercial radio' won't touch, then you're going to look silly when it's pointed out the other half of what Brendan said, which is that they fund other radio stations to support that music.
I really don't need you to rewrite my words, I'm quite happy with how I do it thanks.
I acknowledged this was important, and then focused on the glaring 4/5ths of a wasted time
I don't get why you think that 'mainstream music' that gets played on commercial radio doesn't deserve the support of NZ on Air. Seems to me that its their job to make sure that the people in NZ who listen to crappy pop groups, have the opportunity to listen to crappy NZ pop groups.
they actually do make no effort to address all the colours of the coat in that they don't attempt to identify different genres and make sure each is represented. the only criteria is that its a kiwi playing it.
Brendan has covered this in his post.
A few people here have mentioned electronica as not getting NZ on Air support. Sonic Smith, who's a live performer who does really funky things with an interactive glove here in Dunedin got an hour long live gig and interview on Radio One here the other week, a NZ on Air supported radio station. I don't know how they fare in mainstream radio, but I'm not aware of a radio station that plays that sort of stuff.
-
..to countries that are facing similar social inequalities that will be timebombs if not addressed.
Based on what woolly-arsed theory? Capitalism isn't looking like falling over in the next couple of decades.
-
A 0.625% margin (3/4 seat, to be mostly sainte-league compatible without overly favoring the tiny groups, and mostly matching how many voters you need to get an electorate seat) would be a great change to our current system.
Italy had (I think still does, but it did change somewhat a few years ago) a proportional system with a very low threshold (about .5% or something) for getting into parliament. It led to lots of very minor parties getting just a few members.
Italy under its constitution had a very unstable government. Lead parties had to bind together up to a dozen parties to get a majority, and if a couple of them fell out, they had to reform with other parties, re-negotiate agreements, governments were often falling over and new governments having to take over (sometimes three or four times in an electoral period). The President also sometimes had to dissolve parliament whenever no government was able to be formed. This happened in 1972, 1976, 1979, 1983, 1994, 1996 and 2008.
The couple of Italians I know just wrote it off (as they do with a lot of things Italian as "it's very Italian".
I think there's a good reason why we have a 5% threshold. I wouldn't mind it being lowered, but if you reduced it to about 0.8% - which is one member, there'll be costs to pay.
-
__You're taking half of what he said__
Where'd u get this figure of half from.
OK, read before posting. I didn't say 'half of what is spent'. I said, 'half of what he said'.
-
Pardon me for being desperate to understand how you think that's acceptable in a democratic system that should hold its elections based on policy not popularity.
Wait. I thought we were talking about New Zealand elections. Where's this happening?
-
To be honest, with a couple of exceptions, radio doesn't sell NZ records the way it should if one looks at the airplay. Indeed many of the most successful NZ albums have done so without radio support.
I'm not sure if that's NZ on Air's job though, though I presume their work has helped in some way in sales.
I thought he was quite clear that his focus was that which fits commercial radios predefined formats.
Again, you're taking half of what he said (commercial radio), and viewing it in isolation from the other half (national radio, bnet, kiwi radio). Clearly commercial radio is the focus for the stuff commercial radio will play. There's the other half of the story for the stuff they won't play.
-
I wonder if you'll feel the same way once the Nats start handing out wheel-barrows of your former cash to private prisons, hospitals, schools and whoever else writes Key a big check in the next few months.
I don't like a number of things that the government does with money that it takes off me in taxation. That doesn't mean that it suddenly becomes 'my' money again just because I don't like where it's going.
We cede direct control over money once we live in a country that taxes it off us. We are left with indirect control through elections, lobbying, public opinion, select committee processes etc etc etc. Surely that's at the philosophical basis of a representative government.
-
__you completely failed to link your statements about this to Brendon's information about National Radio NZ and bnet etc. That's how they reflect all the colours of NZ's coat.__
no i didn't.
Would it help if I put them all in one post?
Brendan said:
We don’t say New Zealand music is this or that or sounds like this or that; it is the music that New Zealanders make and, ipso facto, it reflects New Zealand culture and identity, which is a rich tapestry and a coat of many colours, as we all know.
You said:
so you make no effort to reflect all the colours of that coat, to use your metaphor, you allow commercial radio's criteria to dictate the palette, there by failing at your role of reflecting 'nz identity'. essential practicing a form of discrimination.
The statement "so you make no effort to reflect all the colours of that coat", clearly isn't true, because national radio, bnet, kiwi etc are clearly an effort to reflect.
You're giving all the impressions of frothing at the mouth.
__'Bliss' is as much a part of our music history as any other song that Dave Dobbyn performs,__
true and if you were around at the time it came out you'd be hard pushed to hear it on the airwaves. what's your point?
My point is, popular songs that will do well on the charts and in radioplay, and which are essentially local versions of music that could be produced by people overseas, is just as important to have 'on air', as unique NZ-only sounds.
The latest crappy winner of NZ idol is as much a part of our cultural identity as poi-e or Prince Tui Teka or Moana or anything else that is uniquely NZ. Brendan was quite clear that they're about getting all NZ music on air. The reason they work a lot with mainstream commercial music stations, is that that's what most NZers listen to, and that's the music that most NZers like. That's not being narrow, that's being relevant.
-
What I DO mind is a party - any party but in this case it happens to be Labour - decides to simply take some of my money and give it to someone else, in exchange for that persons vote. From my perspective that's what happened with WFF.
Yes. This isn't new though - we've had family assistance, Muldoon and superannuation promises etc. WFF is more of that.
At least what the Herald called 'pork' isn't really pork as you'd see it overseas, where it literally does buy the votes of elected representatives.
Personally once the money leaves my pay cheque and goes to the government, I don't regard it 'mine' anymore. It's the governments. I think tax cuts are as much buying votes with government money as WFF.
-
Most Kiwi voters don't know - and don't really want to know - how the world actually works. To some extent, the media are enablers by infotaining people instead of informing them.
See I was with you until there.
Most Kiwi voters do know how the world works. They get their kids to school, they go to work, they struggle to find enough money to buy food, car, and keep the house, they play sports on the weekend, watch the rugby, occasionally go out, and think politicians tend to talk a bunch of twaddle, which they do.
They're living their lives, and it's a bit condescending to blame 'the way the world is going' on ordinary people. It's a one way ticket to being told to sod off and talk to someone who wants to be told what to do with their lives.
If politicians and political organisers can't make politics relevant for ordinary people then they're not up to the job. Politicians who do that best will be rewarded by being in government next year.
You only need to look at the level of involvement in the American primaries at present to see how politicians can increase engagement in the political system by making it relevant for 'ordinary folk'. It's going to be the main reason why Obama will be nominated for President, and not Clinton.