Public Address - Hard News (Home)

Out of the Groove | May 04, 2007 09:54

For some reason, my Real Groove hasn't arrived in the mail, so I can't gauge the context, but I suspect that Neil Finn didn't mean his diss of the Prime Minister to come out quite like that.

Update: Now that my internet is back, I can point out that I do have a copy of the article. It's not an interview, it's an opinion piece that contains a couple of quotes from an interview with Neil last October. I've posted a bit more on it in the discussion thread for this post.

On one level he's sounding a fair note of caution about the reality of New Zealand music making a "big splash" on the world stage.

On the other, Neil's comments were pointlessly sour and missed the point that in general (there are exceptions), New Zealand On Air support simply isn't aimed at generating export sales, but at domestic broadcasting.

In the past eight years, thanks largely to the voluntary targets the government agreed with the commercial radio industry, the proportion of radio playlists composed of local repertoire has more than doubled to 20%. Over those years, New Zealand music sales claimed a progressively larger share of a declining overall music market. It's a pretty good result.

But it's radio that's the problem here; for Neil anyway. It's likely that the voluntary targets scheme was a quid pro quo for the government not proceeding (or at least dragging its heels) with a dedicated public youth radio network. Neil poured time and energy into the idea of a youth radio network over some years, and committed some of his own money to the project should it go ahead.

He was very passionate about the idea, and not tolerant of those he felt were obstructive. I worked with him on an advisory group that developed ideas for a potential network, and I endured a long and rather difficult phone conversation with him after he deemed me to be insufficiently committed to the vision. He was quite frank about his bitterness when he eventually gave up the battle.

But let's cut Neil some slack - especially after what happened to Crowded House at Coachella last week - and move on.

The industry has been in something of a lull in the past year -- certainly in comparison to a period of unprecedented sales success and public presence in the early part of the decade. Dawn Raid - which spent too much on a project that failed, and didn't pay its taxes - collapsed recently. But that doesn't mean the collapse of the industry.

There are several promising releases scheduled for this year (watch Hollie Smith go) and a very lively undercurrent of independent acts, particularly in Auckland (the New Zealand Music Month Auckland showcase tonight features no fewer than 10 of them). At least one major external sponsor is preparing to re-enter the scene. There are a lot of people who actually really love music in the local industry.

Lil Chief Recordings has delivered the Brunettes to Sub Pop Records and the Ruby Suns to the excellent Memphis Industries label. The Checks have their debut album out soon on another British indie, Full Time Hobby. The trick will be for a Lil Chief or someone else to cash up to the extent that it can hang on to artists and market them internationally itself.

This isn't new: it's almost impossible to generate that kind of money in a market as small as ours. Government funding for export development goes some way towards bridging the gap.

For more, you may want to catch a discussion on the state of the industry between Trevor Reekie, Chris Hocquard, Mike Bradshaw of Sony BMG and myself, recorded earlier this week. I was particularly impressed by Mike's contribution. If you think major label managers are ignorant fat cats, listening to Mike ought to change your mind. It airs on National Radio as part of Music 101, some time between 2pm and 5pm. (It might be easier to catch it up on the website, particularly given that Public Address Radio, 2pm tomorrow on Radio Live, is a scorcher: Ardal O'Hanlon, Craft 2.0, ponoko.com; plus the regular features from David Haywood and Craig Ranapia.)

---
Staying with the music theme, Idealog magazine has launched a project I've thought about before but seriously wouldn't have the time or energy to do: a New Zealand music wiki. It's being overseen by the Idealog editors and Mark Roach, and may wind up as a book. I will be contributing.

Matt Cooney at Idealog also covered this week's striking events at Digg.

Congratulations to our own Damian Christie for achieving what might have seemed impossible: getting a sound report on the open source movement on prime time TV on Close Up this week. Nice one.

The Bill Moyers interview with Jon Stewart on PBS is just great. Honestly, you don't want to make a cult out of the guy, but Stewart is sincere, thoughtful and funny.

Somewhere else you might also want to visit: when we first began our relationship with Karajoz Coffee Company, I was reassured that these were our kind of people when I had a yarn with Derek Townsend about the days of Café DKD. Derek has a great many stories to tell about such things, and he's been induced to get online and put them in a blog. He'll also be talking about coffee and the coffee business.

Finally: as our discussion threads tend to, yesterday's took a winding path that led from the Child Discipline Bill to Brian Tamaki, through MC Hammer and back to Brian and the issue of whether we should call him "Bishop" like he wants. Along the way, Heather Gaye offered a line of sheer inspiration:

Smack My Bishop

She is so getting some coffee for that.

(185 responses)
Digg this Scoopit!

Compromise | May 03, 2007 01:30

Sometimes the bleeding obvious needs to be stated. And thus it was. The Child Discipline Bill is to gain an amendment making it clear that the police will not be expected to prosecute minor events in family life. This was always going to be the real-world effect of the law, as it has been in every other country where similar laws have been passed.

Would it all have been simpler if such a statement of the bleeding obvious had been included in the bill at a much earlier juncture? My oath it would.

The Prime Minister's office could have thought of it months ago. John Key could have thought of it last week, instead of proposing an amendment that he knew would ride right over the philosophical basis of Sue Braford's bill, which would have been undone by any attempt to define an acceptable level of violence against a child.

Still, at least someone thought of it. So that's another chocolate fish this week. Some people think it's a victory for Key. Others see it as a National u-turn. Interestingly, not only are a good many Kiwiblog commenters venting fury John Key in this trainwreck of a thread, but so are roughly as many of the people moved to write to the Herald's Your Views column. Any concerns the police might have had appear to have been eased.

Idiot/Savant at No Right Turn, ever the useful citizen, has written up notes on the speeches from MPs of all parties at last night's reading. Interesting reading.

Confusingly, "Bishop" Brian Tamaki was outside Parliament loudly telling his flock they had won a "glorious victory", but later Simon Barnett was on Close Up condemning the compromise and predicting the falling of the sky.

Perhaps I've missed some comments, but I've been struck by the way that Barnett, who rarely misses a chance to remind us of his parenting credentials, has equally rarely granted that the present law needs changing at all, despite it being absolutely evident that a great many kids suffer much more than the "light smacking" that has become the most overused catchphrase of the whole debate.

Yes, Mr Barnett, we understand that you only ever smack your children briefly, lightly and lovingly, but it would be nice to hear you condemn parents who believe they have a legal and moral right to thrash their kids on a regular basis. The fact that you don't - and instead seem to regard society taking an interest in those homes where those thrashings take place as a much greater evil - makes me think ill of you.

Some pretty weird people have been drawn to the flame of this bill. And that was no doubt in John Key's mind when he made his decision. He'd wound up on the same side as the moral conservatives, the angry and resentful, the fundamentalist Christians who Don Brash was happy to indulge, but who Key hardly wants being the face of his National Party.

But I'm also much inclined to do Key the credit of believing he was doing the right thing. I'm impressed that he was prepared to forgo destructive political advantage. The man whose apparent philosophical emptiness we enjoy pointing out, might just have acted on principle here. Lord knows he probably didn't get this one from a focus group.

It strikes me that I've got what I ask for in my more exasperated political moments. The leaders entrusted with votes by the great bulk of voters in the last election have actually been able to work together rather than fight each other as if the fight was the only thing that mattered. Would a little of the same on monetary policy, housing and exchange rates be out of the question now?

Anyway, I'll serve up a steaming feast of links tomorrow - none of them about smacking - but in the meantime I think I'll conclude with the tardy but eloquent contributions of Paul Litterick on the issue.

He wrote a spirited and thoughtful post that concluded with the plain conclusion of the American Psychological Association:

Until researchers, clinicians, and parents can definitively demonstrate the presence of positive effects of corporal punishment, including effectiveness in halting future misbehaviour, not just the absence of negative effects, we as psychologists can not responsibly recommend its use.

And he followed it up after today's announcement with one that ended this way:

What matters is that it will no longer possible to defend beating your children with a riding crop or similar instrument. What needs to be done now is to create a culture where such barbaric practices will be unthinkable. That may take a little time and a lot of consensus.

PS: Just to completely the change the subject, who'd like a double pass to see Dimmer at the San Francisco Bathhouse tomorrow night? First to reply and tell me Shayne Carter's middle name gets it. Update: It's gone! Danyl wins the prize! The answer is "Peter"!

(362 responses)
Digg this Scoopit!

Morning Multimedia | May 02, 2007 11:43

Just a quick few pointers to audiovisual content today. In tune with New Zealand Music Month, OurTube features a link to Gary Sullivan's spooky new video for Dimmer's 'You're Only Leaving Hurt'.

There's also mo' Craig.

And, my goodness, someone has linked to another interesting ad mash-up in OurTube.

Gotta go to the Freeview launch now …

Digg this Scoopit!

Some actual politics | May 01, 2007 10:38

Colin James ponders in today's Herald whether the impending Budget will mark the start of a move by Labour to haul itself out of its slump. It's a reasonable question in a year where, um, Clayton Cosgrove has a claim as the party's best performing MP - or, rather, the only one without a tin ear. (It would be fair to assume that Phil Goff is putting in his usual exemplary performance, but I am unable to verify that he actually exists.)

James predicts that it will take long enough for the public to discover that the Child Discipline Bill will not actually cause the sky to fall that National will still be able to use it for purposes of correction in next year's general election. He may be right, but I think in the end thecourage the government has shown in standing behind Sue Bradford's bill trumps the godawful impact on public opinion.

But, like James says, when you've already got one hard sell, why would you sally forth with a proposal for public funding of election campaigns when you don't even have the votes locked in to make it law?

The charm offensive has already begun. Helen Clark had a friendly chat with Jim Mora last week; Cullen signals not just more money for tertiary education but an overdue move away from blanket bums-on-seats funding; the Budget will actually put some detail on grand undertakings about sustainability; Chris Carter lifts the lid on a shared equity scheme to help first home buyers.

Whoever thought of reshaping the idea of a cross-party summit on monetary policy into a select committee inquiry presumably gets the chocolate fish this week. Labour will have the votes to define such an inquiry fairly tightly and avoid the three-ring circus National would have liked - and, although the Prime Minister was scrupulously downplaying its prospects of success yesterday, it will have the effect of making monetary policy an issue for all parties. At best, it might even provide a platform for Shane Jones, as the chair of the finance and expenditure select committee

And quite apart from the politics, on this issue, it really is time to pull together.

Labour's legislative programme has been amazingly thin this year, meaning it hasn't had much else to do but react, and often not very smartly. National will hang on towhat No Right Turn characterised as its strategic emptiness - so ably personified by John Key - for as long as it can, but there will come a point where it, in turn, will have to react. Perhaps that's happening already. Key's announcement that Working for Families will have to be hauled back to permit tax cuts if it wins in 2008 is perfectly rational, but it also means National actually doing something that might be targeted by its critics. And DPF might have to find something more important to blog about than this.

I don't know about you, but I've felt weirdly switched off from politics this year. It has seemed petty and irrelevant, at a time when important challenges face us. But maybe, as the year progresses, we will finally get back to arguing about the good of the country and away from migraine-inducing arguments about the right to smack lest the sky fall. That would be good.

(65 responses)
Digg this Scoopit!