We need you to step up and be the kiwi Avril Lavigne, Heather :)

Dammit... valid points... that kinda kills my re-emergence as the kiwi Justin Timberlake plan. Dammit.

It was the whole Avril Lavigne thing that made me think there was a flaw in my argument. Yeah, maybe we are quite hard on "kids' entertainers". Personally, I'd respect anyone who stood up and said "look, we're just trying to make great music that can be played at blue-light discos and to be good role models for preteens; if you don't like it go listen to HDU", but I guess I can't speak for the greater public.

But I think the only kiwi bands that have expressed a specific interest in their younger audience are those who already have widespread appeal. I think bands like Nesian Mystik are really stoked to be able to communicate with the kids in West Auckland, but heaps of different people love their music, with good reason.

I guess ultimately, even if some bands stepped up for the preteen demographic, then ultimately you'd get a bunch of "kids' bands that we hate because they're crap" and a few "kid's bands that aren't kids' bands any more because they're so damn awesome"

Actually, the UK have done OK. Bands like Steps and S-Club-7 are pretty well-respected by everyone over there, and their concerts are attended by kids with their parents. Even here they seem to be acknowledged as good kids' acts, and they certainly don't get nearly as much flack as Lavigne. Perhaps that is just a cultural difference. If there were more bands here that took their cue from the sclub, and added a kiwi flavour, probably they wouldn't get quite so much of the negative pressure you're suggesting.

So is that Art or art ...
Art as in Artist or art as in artisan.

The "Artist with a capital "A"" has always struck me as a rather pretentious appelation for a musician ... or is that "Musician?" The earliest professional (in the sense of this is what I do to live) musicians were the jugglers, minstrels and troubadours. They quickly came to realise that if they were to survive then they must entertain first and foremost.

The concept of the professional musician as Artist is very much a 20th century idea ... but at the heart of the matter is if a musician wants to survive by his skill then he must entertain his audience. This is not to say that he cannot try to impart a message or new idea in his music, but the message will have no vehicle if the audience chooses not to listen.

And I am not so sure that musicians in NZ define themsleves as artists. Some may individually, but I have met a fair few who would laugh in your face and spit in your beer if you called them an artist. Like it or not I strongly suspect that many of the performers in the NZ music industry would be more than happy if their music was accepted by the teeny-bopper demographic ... they would certainly make a little more money out of the whole deal if that were the case. In fact many of the contributors to the forums here fall into that very demographic and they often make more sense than a lt of others.

As for whether television production is an art, by definition it is. art can be defined as skill or any specifi skill or its applications. any craft or profession. So yes it is an art ... but is it "Art?"