harsh bloke
History
- Member for
- 5 years 3 weeks
(Waves)
What a stunning piece of writing. This should be required reading for everyone thinking of writing a band bio.
BTW, I think it's Deep in the Heart of Taxes.
What's with all the spam around here?
Lots of mobile phone ads masquerading as forum posts. And now t-shirts? Am I the only one that doesn't like them (I mean the spam posts... t-shirts themselves are fine)?
I'm not in Wellington or a band (but I've been in both before... does that count?), so just take this as an outsider's suggestion...
Would it not be practical to offer different kinds of rooms? For instance:
*Some studios available for use by the hour and the bands have to lug their gear in and out
*Some studios avaiable for exclusive use and the bands can leave their gear in the securely locked studio
*Some studios reserved for 2-3 bands who use it on a time-share basis, and they can keep their gear in on-site storage or something.
That way, if (like Heather suggests) it turns out there aren't too many bands who need a full-time, round-the-clock space, at least you haven't invested all your space into that.
Anyway, just a suggestion. Good luck.
This thread could use some dissenting opinion so... umm... here goes:
But daaaaaahhhhling, if you don't have the new iPhone, you're so passe!
Oooweeeeaowwww! Hit me!
> I know their image is more than alittle contrived :-) .. but the music's not bad is it
Right. The image is what I was referring to. You know, the whole "Hey hey, we're the Monkees" thing. On the other hand, tunes like that Porpoise Song are pretty far out.
Incidentally, I Googled "band photos" and this came up: the 20 worst band photos (starts at no. 20).
Hahaha. Good one, jet.
Yeah, you're right. If you try to "do something" and get it wrong, you can look a bit... well, like the Monkees. But still, you'd think the person taking the pics would have an idea about what works and what doesn't, wouldn't you?
Those photos you've posted are quite good: not twee but not the ubiquitous "I'm too cool to bother with any of you losers" pose.
Is it wrong for bands to strike a different pose in their publicity shots?
Is there a reason that every rawk band in the known universe uses publicity shots that show them in denims and black, hands in pockets (or other, similarly staunch pose), staring expressionless at the camera?
On-stage photos I can understand: you're busy playing your music at the time (or at least you should be). But what about those "band photos"? I mean, do you really think you're going to lose your mojo if you have a photo that shows you... I dunno, ummm... smiling or actually doing something instead of just standing there?
Every last band in the world claims to blend their influences into a unique sound, so why the hell can't they take a photo that doesn't render them indistinguishable from everyone else?
Just because a band's publicity shots don't show them scowling sullenly at the camera, that doesn't make them the Monkees.
Hmm, I think Limegreen brings up an interesting point when he says:
It seems a fairly screaming indictment that there is no mention of Beautiful Machine. Once upon a time this site would have been abuzz with a new shihad album...
I thought this thread was just about how quiet it's been in the forums section of this site. But is it something bigger? Is NZ music in the doldrums?
It was all about the radio
I'd just like to preface this thread with (1) An apology if this is all no-brainer, obvious stuff and (2) a note that this is not a "modern music sucks" rant; I listen to and like new stuff as well as old (although I'm more selective nowadays). Anyway, here goes...
A couple of months ago I was thinking how weird it was that I could instantly recall, tell you the name of, recite the lyrics of, and sing snippets of just about every popular song from my youth, and yet I struggle to recognise songs and artists these days after hearing just a bar or two.
I know that the music of one's halcyon days has a longer-lasting effect because it is the soundtrack to some of the most enjoyable times of your life, but even so, I thought this situation went beyond that: I mean, I can remember the lyrics and melodies of even the stuff I didn't like in my youth, but have to fish out the liner notes every time I listen to something these days--even stuff I like.
Anyway, when I thought about the major differences in the music environment, it struck me that I listened to a lot of radio when I was young, but hardly ever do so nowadays. The radio was always on at home in the morning and afternoon up until dinner time (unless someone turned it off to play a record or cassette), as well as in the car. So I conducted a little experiment: I downloaded some various-artist compilations and listened to them regularly as one might hear top-40 stuff on the radio.
I'm aware that top-40 radio stations play their heavy-rotation songs several times a day, but when you factor in times spent listening to other forms of music, or time when the radio wasn't on, I guessed you'd hear the same songs around once (twice at most) a day. So I endeavoured to listen to my playlist once a day for a month.
In the end, I didn't manage to maintain the once-a-day routine; each song was played 20 times over a month and a bit--approximately once every two days on average.
How did it turn out? Well, I can now sing along with pretty much all the songs. A number of them have become favourites, and I've bought the artists'/bands' albums; even the one's I didn't care for so much have stuck in my mind, and I can croon along with a chorus or two without having to look up the words--just like when I used to listen to the radio regularly.
So, I have to conclude that the fact I listened regularly to the radio, which played a limited batch of songs repeatedly, and the fact that I don't listen to radio so much are the reasons that I have instant recall of the music of yesteryear but struggle to recognise music from 2008.
It was all about the radio.
I hope it's just a coincidence that this place started depopulatng when Jesus Crux left.
Interesting vid. I don't know why, but I found it funny how the stool moved progressively sideways early on.
Stop-frame photo-films are always fun. I especially like the ones of houses and other structures being built. Even better if there are people running around and its set to Benny Hill-type sped-up comedy music.
Yeah, I have accounts with eBay and local auction giant Yahoo! Auctions*. It's just that there were two specific items on TradeMe that I wanted.
But that aside...
It's not like they need the money
... You realise that's Fairfax you're talking about, right?
∗Digression: eBay set up a local site here in Japan a few years ago in competition with Yahoo, but Yahoo thrashed the pants off eBay, who packed up and went home after a couple of years. Recently there's been talk of the two entering into a tie-up, which will allow eBay customers easier access to Yahoo! Auctions in Japan and vice-versa. If you can't beat 'em...
//organization who bought out trademe a while back...
That's precisely who I was thinking about when I wrote "I would imagine TradeMe has the budget to make that effort". TradeMe's not exactly small potatoes anymore.
Although, I wonder if the new corporate owners would benefit by restricting TradeMe to NZ and Australia.
//FWIW, it is crappy, and I can sympathise. I'm just playing devil's advocate because of the "how DARE trademe not sell to me!" sentiment. ;)
Sure thing. I think this is a good discussion (especialy now I'm over the initial rant!)
//Also, can I just ask - does trademe screen you by your IP address, or do they just require you supply a NZ-based address & phone number?
I'm fairly certain they checked my IP address. There's one detail (which will remain unmentioned here) that throws a small shadow of doubt on it, but I'm pretty sure.
//I could imagine someone merrily trading away on the back of a friend's / their mum's contact details & out of their old university bank account without too much hassle. Is that feasible? That's what I'd do.
That's what I did. Everything except for the gmail address was NZ-specific.
// //but the point is that it's a personal decision,
//- Actually, it's not. I can choose who I buy from, but I don't have much control over who wins my auctions.
Hang on. Are we talking about the same thing? (I'm confused now). Just to clarify: I meant to say that if you were able to choose in advance whether or not you would accept overseas buyers (like with eBay or Yahoo! Auctions and their "click the box if you're willing to send the item overseas, otherwise it's just domestic" policy), and you chose not to, that would be a personal decision and not something foisted on you by the auction site (like with TradeMe and their "we don't allow members outside NZ and Australia" policy).
Next question (although this is moving slightly away from the original topic): If we assume that there is some money to be made in opening TradeMe up to the rest of the world, but that...
//it's probably a matter of scale. I don't know what kind of resources trademe would have/need to expand into a worldwide market. And if they're just catering to a handful of expats [snip] it's not a big enough market to justify the cost of a world of internet pranksters & 419ers... the cold fact is that the overseas market proved not nearly lucrative enough to justify the extra costs of "focussing on bogus users" or perhaps "addressing the complaints of local traders dealing with people overseas"
...does that mean TradeMe is, in effect, in the business of protecting/preventing (I s'pose it depends on your point of view) its members from doing business overseas? If so, is that valid? By which I mean, should the members be allowed to make that choice themselves or is TradeMe doing the right thing?
Good post by Heather.
I think your point is valid. I agree that stolen credit cards and the like are probably TradeMe's reasons for shutting out the rest of the world (although we'll not know unless more details are made available--all I got told was that "in order to make TradeMe safer, we don't allow accounts from overseas"... now what kind of connotations does that message send?)
But doesn't it seem small-minded? Doesn't "let's reject the whole world because there are fraudsters out there" seem defeatist? Wouldn't it be more constructive to focus on the actual bogus users instead (I would imagine TradeMe has the budget to make that effort)?
Yahoo Auctions here in Japan and E-bay in other countries seem to do OK. I'd say they have more problems with fraudsters than TradeMe does, but they appear to be handling it alright, and they leave it up to individual sellers to decide whether they will send overseas or not (you just click the box when posting each item for sale). I reckon that's OK, because it's a personal decision. Same as your...
I wouldn't consider buying from an overseas trader, nor would I be particularly happy about selling to one.
... I take the opposite approach, but the point is that it's a personal decision, whereas TradeMe's policy of telling the world to bugger off seems like an institutionalised village mentality; an us-kiwis-against-the-world-eh sort of thing.
I would dearly love to be wrong, but that's how it looks.
Yes, do pardon my rant. I was rather incredulous at the stupidity of it all. Anyone would think Trade Me are scared of having to deal with the big, bad world.
I guess my point was that there is a whole planet of people out here and, if Trade Me would acknowledge us, we'd be happy to give them our money.
Now then, no internet rant is complete without a sweeping and derogatory generalisation, so I suppose I'd better make one, too. Umm, how about: "Geez, no wonder NZ's still a backwater: one of the country's biggest internet-based companies can't even grasp the basic tenet of the World Wide Web."
I loved "Te News" with Abe Pakitiwhaino!