Turtlerock Forum

Forgive my ignorance over the past few months of studio tanning, I thought I was keeping up with the news, but does this really get to anyone else or is it just me wondering if I'm being deafened by the silence? :

"Commercial Radio Australia (CRA) has proposed new digital-only radio stations be exempt from local music quotas, in line with exemptions that apply to free-to-air digital tv" - The Australian

The changes in last year's draft music code included removing a statement of support for the local music industry; a proposal that any new genres of music, sports or open-line programs have a zero Australian content quota; and deleting a series of definitions that define "new release" Australian music as being less than 12 months old and "Australian performance period", during which time local content must be played, as being between 6am and midnight, rather than in early morning hours.
"If (ACMA) has adopted CRA's proposal in the face of the clear opposition of the industry that would be amazing," - Music Council of Australia spokesman Richard Letts.

Sure, online exposure (and hopefully community radio) has been the way for the vast majority of indie artists but can anyone else imagine the Herald-Sun spearheaded campaign if tv and radio were to say "stuff the AFL, we're going to air 75% American rugby"?

Additionally, I wonder how many artists would be keen to ask CRA "where are the reports on Oz music quotas from the past FIVE YEARS?" (which, at only 25%, is also applicable only to some registered stations):
http://www.commercialradio.com.au/index ... ge_id=1171
... let alone lobby for far better than the 25% quota – of which only 25% must be new artists.

I can tell you that even some community broadcasters with self-imposed 40% minimum quotas and community based licence conditions are certainly not airing local/indie artists, though I see this improving (and working on one myself).

Still, did I miss this "clear opposition of the industry"? APRA and Music Council of Aust made a submission to CRA opposing the proposals. Is that it?

Adam I bet you will find that this policy is to allow Digital Broadcasters to license and stream programs directly from other territories

thus being able to stay afloat in an ever shrinking advertising budget

From (our) MCA's submission:

6. The CRA proposal continues: “The imposition of Australian music quotas on new digital-only channels would prevent licensees from providing a wide range of new and diverse programming and hence would defeat one of the Government’s key broadcasting policy objectives.â€

It stinks, along with the rest of the free trade agreement which it's more than likely part of, I guess it's now the music industries turn to be screwed.

Just like when Aussie farmers were bulldozing orange trees because we are importing too many cheaper oranges, go figure. Every type of local production has been affected.

I think there is probably a chance here for a few "new" commercial digital stations to make their own higher quotas on "local" procuctions (say 50%), all genres including indiginous and maybe include say New Zuland and other Asia Pacific countries/territories. If people made a real effort to listen to these stations and stick with them then advertisers will have to start using them more and more, generating more income and support for local music. In a perfect world of course.

As far as I could tell digital is only available in the major cities anyway.
Where I live radio station choice is extremely limited, and the signal even from local stations can be patchy.
I looked into digital radio and it was clear there was no point in investing in a player unless I was living in the city.

It seems that once again the pursuit of the almighty dollar is behind these mooted changes, cloaked in bureaucratic spin from CRA.

Thanks Adam, for this.

Who needs to be told that can make changes? Government Ministers? Journos? I wouldn't know who to complain to but somebody here might know...

I'm literally in the process of writing to Commercial Radio Australia... mail @ commercialradio.com.au , Julie Warner (Compliance Manager) and Jenny Stevenson (Media & Public Relations Consultant), jenny.stevenson @ commercialradio.com.au

Remember to ask for a response.

If you'd like to tweet about the "missing" quota reports (I'm asking CRA where they are, and if they've responded to MCA's valid concerns) you can use http://tiny.cc/09hp1

Feel free to Bcc to network this, as I just can't imagine any other sector putting up with an equivalent of this in apathetic silence or ignorance (tourism, mining, sports immediately come to mind).

I've posted it with links on the SLAM facebook page, which coincidentally also contains good news about the $ value of the live music scene.

Of course CRA's proposals also would seem to fly in the face of the Federal Government's Strategic Contemporary Music Industry Plan.. so have your say there, too.

god damn it....

first 2ser...got royally F$#ked up the woo woo

....2rrr is now under threat...

what else do they want to do to us!!! BS!!!!!

fyi.. an email auto-reply that Julie Warner of CRA is on leave until July 5.

Try emailing 'Media Watch' - the ABC monday night programme.

So as suspected we now look to ACMA, the Aust Communications and Media Authority

CRA's reply:

Thank you for your comments, which we have noted. The industry followed the prescribed legislative process in developing the new Commercial Radio Codes of Practice in conjunction with the ACMA and, as a result of that process, the new music code (Code 4) is being considered by the ACMA and will be published shortly.

Kind regards

Jenny

Jenny Stevenson
Media Manager
Commercial Radio Australia

just to add a bright note
who knew that this year live music in australia turned over 2 billion dollars ?


i figure what ever doesnt kill us only makes us stronger

edit "oh chris h knew ...:)"

AC/DC would have got most of that $2B. Heh.

ChrisW wrote:As far as I could tell digital is only available in the major cities anyway.
Where I live radio station choice is extremely limited, and the signal even from local stations can be patchy.
I looked into digital radio and it was clear there was no point in investing in a player unless I was living in the city.

It's worth visiting Austereo sometime and you'll see the investment they've made.

Please see my point though: it's not digital radio now but digital radio to come - drawing a line in the sand - its implications and any precedent (and commercial pressures) the proposals could place on current radio. (I'm coming from a radio background noticing even the local station's not any playing local or independent music – yet).

Or please just tell me this has been a battle well fought and I just missed it? Because if everyone seems resigned to it anyway due their existing struggles then would it not only further resign music to the hobbyists as absence of radio royalties only detract from recording budgets and industry morale?

Or.. if there really is a means of us collectively saying "Oi, commercial radio, we don't need you anyway" then I'd be happy to watch it fall from a saturated Black-Thunder-hunting peak hour traffic market.

Thing is, I have faith in peoples' tastes for music and of course it's their listeners, still ignorant of the plethora of amazing local talent we have, that really counts in the end. We can't dictate the (mostly intra-industry) MySpace/ReverbNation/SoundCloud browsing, but we can make reasonable demands for minimum requirements for our industry (as is the case in all other industry sectors I can think of)...

I reckon you might want to have a chat with AIR (http://www.air.org.au) as I believe they have been / are preparing to lobby around local content quotas.

I'm sure it's an unpopular opinion, but I've always thought content quotas were kind of lame, and the musical equivalent of affirmative action. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the spirit of the thing, I just don't think it's a net positive in practice. Anyone listen to FBI with their self-imposed content quotas? I tried, but I can't. I find the vast majority of it to be really, really terrible (not that the commercial stations are much better, mind you) to the point that it's not worth it to listen through an hour of dreck for the couple of good bits.

Want to get airplay? Be better. The cream rises to the top, and all those other cliches apply, IMO.

Anyway, as I said, I reckon I'm in the vast minority here... just thought I'd put in my 2c.

a.beck wrote:I'm sure it's an unpopular opinion, but I've always thought content quotas were kind of lame, and the musical equivalent of affirmative action. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the spirit of the thing, I just don't think it's a net positive in practice. Anyone listen to FBI with their self-imposed content quotas? I tried, but I can't. I find the vast majority of it to be really, really terrible (not that the commercial stations are much better, mind you) to the point that it's not worth it to listen through an hour of dreck for the couple of good bits.

Want to get airplay? Be better. The cream rises to the top, and all those other cliches apply, IMO.

Anyway, as I said, I reckon I'm in the vast minority here... just thought I'd put in my 2c.

totally agree there, couldnt agree more.

Both FBI and some of Triple J's content is appauling.

Cannot hold a candle to 2ser's content in its hay day...used to listen to that from midday to midnight as a kid on holidays....never was radio so good !

RIP.

I'm not an Aussie, but I can't say I agree with the 'be better' stance.
In my years of experience in the biz it's plain that heavily promoted international acts are more appealing to commercial outlets (radio and tv) than taking a chance on something local.
That's why guys like John Peel were so revered and important to the continued development of local/difficult music in the UK.
Giiven total freedom, Aussie broadcasters would happily play Usher and Madonna all day long.
Quotas don't necessarily weaken the average show, forcing the presenter to shoe horn local drek into an hour of glossy foreign fare. Quotas probably give local artists the possibility to be heard on niche/John Peel style shows. Channel 9, NBN out of Newcastle have a 1 hour MTV style show which focuses mainly on local artists.
These are the type of shows that got me a leg up into the music business back in the early 80's, so I think they are a good thing for the young musicians of today.

a.beck wrote:I'm sure it's an unpopular opinion, but I've always thought content quotas were kind of lame, and the musical equivalent of affirmative action. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the spirit of the thing, I just don't think it's a net positive in practice. Anyone listen to FBI with their self-imposed content quotas? I tried, but I can't. I find the vast majority of it to be really, really terrible (not that the commercial stations are much better, mind you) to the point that it's not worth it to listen through an hour of dreck for the couple of good bits.

Want to get airplay? Be better. The cream rises to the top, and all those other cliches apply, IMO.

Anyway, as I said, I reckon I'm in the vast minority here... just thought I'd put in my 2c.

nar, I agree. It is such a strange mentality in the arts community.


A lecturer told me while I was studying at university "If you want a grant, just do something that involves aboriginal music in some way"...

Huh?? I'm not aboriginal, nor do I really have/find any connection with aboriginal music. Yet, it's a key point in obtaining a lot of grants. It does my head in.

I also remember sitting through the most boring art history subject on the state of the Australian film industry. It was essentially 4 months of dull complaining about Australian films being flogged by foreign imports at our box offices. Yet, the notion of an Australian film was something that was uniquely Australian... like rabbit proof fence. Nice movie, but I guarantee the imported films are blockbusters pertaining to no country in particular.

It's ridiculous. It is like this country is suffering from some kind of adolescent self-identity struggle. "Uniquely Australian". What the hell is that??? "It is what we say".

Pfft. Deregulate it all... everything related to art. It is art after all... It seems "Love it or leave it" is about as liberal as this country gets.

As there is very little financial support for local musicians and studios in Australia anyway, has been that way for a long while as far as I can see, how do you explain the vibrant and healthy local scene across the country (tongue firmly in cheek)?

You get what you pay/fight for, and in this case it's a struggle to make a mark on the music consumer here, not to mention outside the national boundaries (USA and Europe).

rick wrote:just to add a bright note
who knew that this year live music in australia turned over 2 billion dollars ?

i figure what ever doesnt kill us only makes us stronger

edit "oh chris h knew ...:)"

Hey Rick yeah I actually mentioned that earlier too. And it's great. But hang on, isn't that a result of acts (including international acts touring) gaining significant popularity as a result of the majority of fans hearing them on the radio (and tv - which has a 55% quota)?

a.beck wrote:Want to get airplay? Be better. The cream rises to the top

Does it? wrt commercial radio?

I'm sure any of us could come up with thousands of artists all worthy of airplay to audiences who are yet to hear their stuff. (JJJ is in a separate class being gov radio with a self-imposed 40% quota, despite Kingsmill's: ‘With all of the music that comes in, we do two things: we go, “Is it good or not?â€

i think that mega $$ figure is because concerts cost so much nowadays , but the thing is people value concerts or lets just call it live music enough to pay through the nose for it more so then ever before
and they pay so much less for recorded music
i think that is the sign of the times

recorded music and copyright WILL find its value again , but probably a way down the track
i dont know whats going on really ADAM , i have given up worryng about it though
i just know people NEED music
and someone always figures out a way to charge for things in need :)

the people that make all these silly government decisions by commitee are not on my dinner guest list
so i just dont know about this stuff

a.beck wrote:always thought content quotas were kind of lame, and the musical equivalent of affirmative action.

let me guess... born upper to middle class white male?

a.beck wrote: Anyone listen to FBI with their self-imposed content quotas? .

Just gotta say that FBI rocks.. I seriously like that station.. sure, some programs are a bit hard to digest, but we can't all just be listening to Nickleback and U2.. no matter how great they are ;\

no-fi wrote:

a.beck wrote:always thought content quotas were kind of lame, and the musical equivalent of affirmative action.

let me guess... born upper to middle class white male?

Sure, but if you think that's actually relevant here, you've got more issues than me, to be honest. :)

Ever lived in the U.S. and seen all the problems with affirmative action? As I said in my other post (from which you took that quote right out of context - thanks), I do think that it's a great idea, in theory. It just doesn't work properly in the real world the majority of the time.

Either way, it's also completely beside the point. It was just an example of a "it's the thought that counts" system that creates more problems than it solves, which is my general view on content quotas. IMO/YMMV/etc.

@Futureman: If you like it, cool.. but you're being disingenuous: there's worlds of content between what FBI plays and U2/Nickelback, which to me are on the total opposite end of the quality bellcurve. Don't get me wrong - if there were only 2 stations available, one that played Nickelback exclusively (TripleM?), and FBI, of course I'd listen to FBI. But that's a pointlessly exaggerated hypothetical "lesser of two evils" scenario with no relation to the actual radio landscape in Sydney.

How do you put all those nice words together to make an intelligent sentence and even on a Sunday?
You are very good at expressing your thoughts - well done to you sir

a.beck wrote:

no-fi wrote:

a.beck wrote:always thought content quotas were kind of lame, and the musical equivalent of affirmative action.

let me guess... born upper to middle class white male?

Sure, but if you think that's actually relevant here, you've got more issues than me, to be honest. :)

my issues have nothing to do with your shortsighted view of the first stages of affirmitive action. and we're not talking about my issues here (that topic could take a whole forum of its own) we're talking about your opinion on something you've obviously never thought through, due to the position you were allowed to start at.

most people take a look at the first steps of affirmitive acation programs as if they're the absolute end goal. This is absolutely not so, and more than about 20 seconds of thinking about the idea and considering the privilege you and I and pretty much everyone reading this forum were born into that plenty of people aren't (but could be, if they were raised in the same way we were, in families with the same resources and expectations as ours had) might.

Ever lived in the U.S. and seen all the problems with affirmative action? As I said in my other post (from which you took that quote right out of context - thanks), I do think that it's a great idea, in theory. It just doesn't work properly in the real world the majority of the time.

for all the problems affirmitive action may cause, the US has way more problems with a lack of affirmitive action.

The US's biggest problem is nothing to do with affirmitive action. or even race or gender. The US's biggest problem is that it is designed to allow wealthy people to use their financial power against less wealthy people, in order to make themselves better off. this is done in the name of "economic freedom" "the free market" etc. there is nothing free about a free market, when a few very wealthy elite control all the resources and are only looking out for themselves.

Either way, it's also completely beside the point. It was just an example of a "it's the thought that counts" system that creates more problems than it solves, which is my general view on content quotas. IMO/YMMV/etc.

the space for australian acts to be played on radio creates an audience and a market for australian acts. And it's before this audience in this market that good musical acts are given the chance to grow.

the issue is there is way more operating here in the commercial radio world than "cream rising to the top" - when australian radio stations take wholesale overseas produced content to package around their revenue streams (ie ads) it's got nothing to do with what's good, it's got to do with conforming to the giant worldwide marketing system that these information outlets are wired into along with gossip magazines and newspapers and tv stations, and the massive marketing/hype machines that feed it. I mean "cream folating to the top" really?? have you heard the musical drivel that most commercial radio stations play? it's not about the music at all. it's all about what media bimbo is fighting or shagging whatever other media bimbo, and the decreed (marketed) musical fashion of the minute.

@Futureman: If you like it, cool.. but you're being disingenuous: there's worlds of content between what FBI plays and U2/Nickelback, which to me are on the total opposite end of the quality bellcurve. Don't get me wrong - if there were only 2 stations available, one that played Nickelback exclusively (TripleM?), and FBI, of course I'd listen to FBI. But that's a pointlessly exaggerated hypothetical "lesser of two evils" scenario with no relation to the actual radio landscape in Sydney.

I also think FBI is pick of the crop in Sydney. Not perfect, it tries way too hard to be trendy and is very full of its own importance in the scheme of things, but it still makes the world a better place for its existence. I can't say the same about most commercial radio stations.

I'm also a financial supporter of FBI to the tune of $120 a year (and 2ser... actually I think that one might have lapsed... will have to go and check that later)

I'd love to know what you consider a better station than FBI or SER.

Sammas wrote:A lecturer told me while I was studying at university "If you want a grant, just do something that involves aboriginal music in some way"...

Huh?? I'm not aboriginal, nor do I really have/find any connection with aboriginal music. Yet, it's a key point in obtaining a lot of grants. It does my head in.

good. Now rather than give up, maybe you need to think more about why this is how it is?

How about for a start you try and go find some aboriginal music in a music shop? pop up the road, and have a look. now come back.... was that an easy job to find aboriginal connected music? how many choices of aboriginal connected music did you find compared to how many choices you find for corporate monoculture connected music?

and maybe another part of the issue is, with your background and contacts, why do you need govt grants anyway? there's not that much money in ausco. maybe people doing aboriginal music need (and deserve) it more than you? Maybe with a white middle class background and education and reference points your art should be able to appeal to more people more easily, and should be more able to support itself in the overall industry (especially if there's a quota system in place on radio that gives your local music an advantage over imported music)?

I also remember sitting through the most boring art history subject on the state of the Australian film industry. It was essentially 4 months of dull complaining about Australian films being flogged by foreign imports at our box offices. Yet, the notion of an Australian film was something that was uniquely Australian... like rabbit proof fence. Nice movie, but I guarantee the imported films are blockbusters pertaining to no country in particular.

no country in particular.. but a very specific monoculture. One that appeals to you, and one you can easily operate in with your background, but one that leaves plenty of other people in our country alienated and out in the cold.

It's ridiculous. It is like this country is suffering from some kind of adolescent self-identity struggle. "Uniquely Australian". What the hell is that??? "It is what we say".

Pfft. Deregulate it all... everything related to art. It is art after all... It seems "Love it or leave it" is about as liberal as this country gets.

adolescent? I don't think so. but identity struggle, yes.

our media basically wants to portray us as an extra state of the US. but we're at least 1/3 of the world away from there, with our own culture and our own ways of doing things that are being swamped by mass media who make more money doing this than representing what we actually are. And their only reason for existing is to make money.

it's happening and if we don't sit down and ask what the hell is going on here, and even try and make a rational decision about if we want to accept this or not, then we're going to get bulldozed anyway.

I've lived in America. I've lived in the UK.
I've taught in the private music college system (albeit very briefly).
The free market is a very blunt instrument.
Without legislation or public funding, many great projects would have failed to get off the ground, many talented kids would have failed to get a start in entertainment or the arts.
The private sector rules about 95% of the arts. So you aren't really holding back the prospectss of U2 and Damian Hirst by accepting a little 'affirmative action' here and there (IMHO).

no-fi wrote:

Sammas wrote:A lecturer told me while I was studying at university "If you want a grant, just do something that involves aboriginal music in some way"...

Huh?? I'm not aboriginal, nor do I really have/find any connection with aboriginal music. Yet, it's a key point in obtaining a lot of grants. It does my head in.

good. Now rather than give up, maybe you need to think more about why this is how it is?

How about for a start you try and go find some aboriginal music in a music shop? pop up the road, and have a look. now come back.... was that an easy job to find aboriginal connected music? how many choices of aboriginal connected music did you find compared to how many choices you find for corporate monoculture connected music?

and maybe another part of the issue is, with your background and contacts, why do you need govt grants anyway? there's not that much money in ausco. maybe people doing aboriginal music need (and deserve) it more than you? Maybe with a white middle class background and education and reference points your art should be able to appeal to more people more easily, and should be more able to support itself in the overall industry (especially if there's a quota system in place on radio that gives your local music an advantage over imported music)?

This is all well and good, but the recommendation of doing something involving aboriginal music didn't pertain to commissioning aboriginal work in any way. Just "throw a didgeridoo in there"... that is it.

Aboriginal music is nothing like western music. It is much much more entwined into aboriginal culture and varies from clan to clan. It's performance and the performers are dictated by clan laws and hierarchy. For example, most clans don't allow women to play the didgeridoo. There really isn't anyway of removing aboriginal music from aboriginal culture without disrespecting it.

Is this really the presidence you want to be set? A diluted, alienated version of a specific culture's music purely for the consumption of the west in mass? Isn't this the very thing you are trying to argue to avoid?

I also remember sitting through the most boring art history subject on the state of the Australian film industry. It was essentially 4 months of dull complaining about Australian films being flogged by foreign imports at our box offices. Yet, the notion of an Australian film was something that was uniquely Australian... like rabbit proof fence. Nice movie, but I guarantee the imported films are blockbusters pertaining to no country in particular.


no country in particular.. but a very specific monoculture. One that appeals to you, and one you can easily operate in with your background, but one that leaves plenty of other people in our country alienated and out in the cold.


It's ridiculous. It is like this country is suffering from some kind of adolescent self-identity struggle. "Uniquely Australian". What the hell is that??? "It is what we say".

Pfft. Deregulate it all... everything related to art. It is art after all... It seems "Love it or leave it" is about as liberal as this country gets.

adolescent? I don't think so. but identity struggle, yes.

our media basically wants to portray us as an extra state of the US. but we're at least 1/3 of the world away from there, with our own culture and our own ways of doing things that are being swamped by mass media who make more money doing this than representing what we actually are. And their only reason for existing is to make money.

it's happening and if we don't sit down and ask what the hell is going on here, and even try and make a rational decision about if we want to accept this or not, then we're going to get bulldozed anyway.

It is definitely adolescent. This country has only stood for a century and a bit... For example, Australian classical music only really came to be in the 1950's or so. Prior to that, it was just Australian's writing classical music... but not Australian classical music.

You've mentioned "with our own culture and our own ways of doing things". What is our culture and what is our own way of doing things?? The way my Mother approaches her art, and her life, and even the perception of what being Australian means to her, having grown up on a farm, raised a family in the suburbs only to return to the farm later in life is going to be a lot different to my brother's art, having grown up in the suburbs, now residing in the city and stepping out his front door onto the streets of chinatown.

And they are two family members. What about the two families that live either side of me? Both uniquely Australian, yet one of Italian heritage and the other of Peruvian heritage. They are Australian, and proudly call themselves that. What does that do to "Our own culture" considering "Our" includes them as well.

You have partly acknowledge it, but if the media wants to portray us an extra state of the US how are quotas on radio play going to prevent it? 30%, 40% 100% quotas on playing local music still don't guarantee that any of the music is "uniquely Australian" anyway. It most likely is just monoculture rubbish as well.

I think you need to step past what you think I like about art, because you have it quite wrong. The notions of "who we are" and "our culture" currently established in things like the grant making process are alienating an ever diversifying arts community and a lot of the resulting art from these grants is watered down and terribly cliche. It really is no wonder the Australian public takes a pass on it. There are only so many renditions of Crocodile Dundee I can put up with.