My assumptions are based on (and I haven't got a clear handle on this yet):

Radio play helps a band establish their sound, popularity and gets punters to gigs, helping pay bills and exposing them to labels etc.

It seems bands need to sound like "radio friendly" to survive long term.

The impacts:
Bands (some) write songs to get grants.

Radio won't reflect what bands are doing, rather what the PD thinks that advertsing dollars will surround. Radio stations have a "sound" that bands have to fit into. Bands write songs to fit that sound.

If you don't fit into "the sound" you have a much harder time getting your music out there - beyond friends at least. Many a good band gives up, sick of playing to mates in a pub.

Bands have to choose integrity or survival.

***There are of course exceptions to this, and they are definitely visible, but it's hard to see the bands that didn't survive***

Well, for a start the Datsuns are not signed to a major label. They run their own label and liscense the album to different labels in different parts of the world. This means that they retain the rights to their music and have creative control over what they put out ( obviously a main distributor like V2 in the UK would have some say as well).
Now, in terms of radio's effect on the "underground", I don't think it has any. Any band who has artistic integrity will keep making the music they want to make irrespective of what is being played on the airwaves. Any band who caters their sound to the radio programmer's tastes are hardly very underground or indie. Obviously there are some bands who profess to be underground but are still tailoring themselves to fit into the radio rock mould. True underground (I really hate this term) bands will always operate completely seperate from the tastes of commercial radio.
The two should never really effect each other, except when radio decides to jump on to another trend ie: garage rock. At the end of the day, as long as you are making the music you want to make, whether it be bubble-gum pop or death metal, you shouldn't worry whether radio has or hasn't picked up on you. And really, if they want to play you, you can't really stop them short of not releasing any material at all.

RADIO SUCKS!!!!!!!

Bnet has destroyed the really creative "underground" music. I'm saying this because when Radio Active in Wellington was run by the students, you could tune in and hear stuff you've never heard before.
I remember some truly inspirational moments listing to some new "underground/Alt" band for the first time, moments like that changed my life..... thats feeling is DEAD! and I blame shit radio newtworks like B-net.

The student radio stations have been swallowed up, diluted, fucked up the arse and left in the hands of pussy arsed PDs who wouldn't know good music if it bit them on the end of their knob.

Bring back the underground stations fuck b-net stations, creativity needs the cred it deserves.

It seems to me that radio is not something that people listen to to anymore to 'find' a band they like. It has now become the medium by which your are 'told' what to like. And I dont like being told what to do.

Labels would really like you to believe that the only way you can access music is through their controlled radio stations, and music televison channels, and from there the only way you can access it is to buy the cd you've been told to. Copy-protected of course.

It used to be hearing a band played on the radio was a validation of an artists success. I dont think that is so true anymore. It is simply a filter for the music, that the labels have invested in, they put a lot into marketing and hype, and they expect a return on investment. This is achieved by a controlled and narrow focus of music beamed at the consumer. So is it truly a realistic portrayal of the current sound? I like the ability to contrast and compare. The higher up you go on the radio food chain, the more it all sounds the same. Sure there are competing genres, but not a lot of variety within each one. That would lead to too competitive of a business model. Supply and Demand. Keep the supply limited and you can charge what you want.

I find more music online these days. Mp3s, a wide variety of independent internet radio streams, forums and communities like nzm. I think that this kind of activity, the enthusiasm and material you encounter at this level is a truer represenation of what is happening with music. It may not be the big bucks that get thrown around at that higher level, but why does money validate it more? What we need is to keep these communities growing and keep supporting the artists at this level; so they can make a very comfortable living while doing what they love, without dependance on some all-mighty label.

Being a Rock Star is a fine goal, but it shouldnt be the only, do or die ,option for a musician. or should it? i'll leave that for another thread maybe.

i feel that playing live and getting even the smallest amount of air play on any format of radio is the most supportive financial income bands in new zealand can obtain and still keep there "cred" what ever the fuck that is.....

my last chq from apra was $70 and that was for one song playlisted on rdu,

and i dont listian to radio, free money

hey opchunam -
I was under the impression that B-nets didnt calculate royalties. Anyone know??

In response to the original comment at the top.

having a street sound that is a very farty comment yes I said farty
if you meant a sound that isn't justin timberlake well then I would agree. The underground music scene is more that way because it takes a little effort to find the music, it isn't just piped out at you between ads for car sales yards and macdonalds

if your music does make it to commercial radio I think that is fantastic, it may get a few more people along to your gigs.

if what you are concerned about is the calibre of the people that might come along to you gigs. I agree the less munters the better. alas the smacks of elitist crap and I should really check myself before I wreck myself.
my interpretation of the first point is that you want to paint a painting but you want to control who looks at it. if that is the case hang it your room. (don't release the music)

rant rant rant

It's been said before- once music is released to the public, they can really do what they want with it.

Although there are many people in the music industry who are paid a lot of money to try and work out what the listening public want, in the hope that they can throw a little money at a few bands and rake it in once they've made it- or attempt to influence public opinion through various propaganda methods to guide the weak-minded to a particular group they happen to have signed. Alternatively, there are many bands who decide to work out what the public wants, then keep writing songs for the public untill they get a bite. You really only need one good song, I guess...

All of which makes me feel a little ill. But it is the way this industry dysfunctions, man. It's life.

'Underground?' That's such a record label thing to say... :'this new act is sooooo underground...' $$Ching ching...

As opposed to 'this act is soooo mainstream...' ker-plunk.

V. depressing, really.

ok then....so i gather youre talkin bout hip-hop shit???? am i rite? or just n e band in general. i mean wat is the deal with hip-hop/rap n e ways. yes playin it on the radio does effect the way people see that kind of music-but only listen 2 it if you want 2. not cause your radio dj sez u have to!!!!!