• 33
  • 2
  • 1939
www.fasterlouder.com.au

Should Australian music quotasbe abolished?

We all know that the FL Forums love a good “impassioned discussion”, so each Friday over the last five weeks we have been fuelling that chatter with five controversial music debates. Thanks to Hyundai’s new Veloster will be giving away prizes each week for the best debaters.

This week we enter the final debate – and it features Kyle and Jackie O, so we know you are going to have a lot to say. Commercial Radio Australia, are currently calling for the abolition of music quota that require them to play 25% Australian content from 6am to midnight. We want to know what you think about it – and just for getting involved you could win $350 worth of Australian albums.

Should Australian music quotas be abolished?

Ok. I’m just going to call this: no. The answer to this question is a resounding NO. No, no, no, no. This is a stupid, culturally irresponsible idea. But as we are reasonable adults, let’s lay out both sides, after which point we can all agree that it is a monumentally stupid idea to abolish these quotas. But only after, not now.

For the quota abolition: Commercial Radio Australia

Current regulations stipulate that radio stations must play 25% Australian content from 6am to midnight. That doesn’t mean just new music, either – only a quarter of that quarter has to have been released in the last 12 months, equalling a massive 6.25% new Australian music getting airplay on commercial networks. Plenty of room left over to bludgeon listeners with Lana Del Rey. Stations must meet the quota in order to fulfil the broadcast services act charter and earn their right to a broadcast license, the terms of which stipulate the promotion of “Australian identity, character and cultural diversity.”

Australian digital radio stations have however, been granted an exception on the quota until 2014. This has lead CRA to argue that will result in an uneven playing field. CRA are concerned they will lose listeners to digital radio stations that don’t have to play six songs out of every hundred that were produced locally in the last year. Even though CRA posted annual profits of $683 million in that last year, which makes their reasoning look especially specious.

So, Commercial Radio Australia’s argument is that essentially, listeners don’t want to hear Australian music. So much so that they will abandon their stations cowed by the threat of accidentally hearing a Gotye track and run to the safety of the internet where they will never listen to a piece of Australian music ever again. Worryingly, this assertion appears to be backed up by data: 2011’s most played tracks on commercial stations did not feature even one Australian artist.

Which is of course, a classic chicken/egg predicament…

  • 1
  • 2
  • kazbar
  • sarahanne

Comments

www.fasterlouder.com.au arrow left
43470
Braveheart81

Braveheart81 said on the 3rd Feb, 2012

I began by listening to Triple M when I was a kid which meant I was into commercial/cock rock and classic Aussie/cock rock.

AC/DC was my favourite band.

It wasn't until I started getting into live music that I began listening to Triple J and appreciating music that was less commercial and more available in terms of being able to see live.

I like listening to the radio and I generally think that presenters add rather than detract to the experience. For that reason I am less likely to move to digital radio in the short term. In the car is the place where I most listen to the radio so without a digital radio in the car, traditional radio stations will remain what I listen to.

In terms of the Australian music quotas, I firmly believe they should stay. Radio sprectrum licenses are a limited commodity, exist essentially through taxpayer funded and owned assets (transmitter towers) and should have some sort of public benefit, particularly as many of the license holders are exploiting them for profit.

Whilst one could argue that the commercial stations such as Nova and 2DayFM are playing crap Aussie music when they do play it, I still believe that serves a purpose. I am far happier that those stations help support Guy Sebastian or Jessica Mauboy's career to some degree rather than just further lining the pockets of Miley Cyrus. Commercial pop has it's place (thankfully nowhere near me) and there is no reason not to encourage the Aussie commercial pop scene.

The CRA argument that it isn't a level playing field because digital stations are not subject to the quota is ridiculous. The number of listeners currently tuning in to digital stations effectively means that they are irrelevant to the commercial radio industry.

lateleigh

lateleigh said on the 6th Feb, 2012

I would really like to dig my heels into the CRA and say how awful they are for considering such a proposal, but the reality is, they are reflecting a growing public indifference to not just locally produced music, but to some degree an indifference to anything that isn't totally mono-cultural. Not caring about what happens in mainstream, commercial music isn't enough for me. I cant be switched off to it when nearly every resource I access - by no choice of my own - rings with the sight or sound of the latest talented new-comer, who always seems to be either American (specifically LA based) or trying so hard to appear that way, its almost impossible to tell the difference. Then theres the subliminal hatred. I feel bad for hating people who lap up, apparently anything deemed 'hot' by the faceless arseholes who apparently have a lot to gain by you buying the latest shitty autotuned wankery. As far as I'm concerned the CRA are just more faceless arseholes with an agenda. What that is can probably be summed up by the complete flat-lining of any real diversity in heavily promoted music. Why risk losing listeners/money/advertisers on some 'weird local shit by some unknown wannabe' when you can get Timomatic and Reece Mastin to dance on command, look damn pretty doing it, AND sound like a combination of Black Eyed P!nk Marooned Beiber or whatever the kids (apparently) all slurped up by the tonne last year?

My question is, are the CRA looking to drop all locally produced music from their playlists or just the stuff that wasn't produced, written and rapped on by some bloke in Hollywood called T-Party? In which case, haven't they already achieved their goal?? Creating a vacuum in which only this miniscule measure of success applies to musicians is so destructive in the long term. The apparent glamour (if you're a bogan maybe?) of US-style overnight stardom on the back of some paper thin soulless dance tune is of course hollow, but why then are so many young Australian artists seeing it as something to strive for? You could argue that the end of anything identifiable as Australian on commercial radio is already upon us, but I predict hard times ahead for people like CRA and other supporters of shit made in America's gotta be good, it sells like hot muffins. They drop all Australian content from commercial radio, and eventually just run one long unchanging advertisement/song on an endless loop that gradually becomes a single droning autotuned note, a flat-line, if you like spelling the (by that time) much welcomed death of those withering arseholes who through the power of commercial media, want nothing more than to dull the wit of all who come in contact with them.

NoniDoll

NoniDoll said on the 18th Feb, 2012

as someone working in commercial radio (burn the witch!), i want to say i completely and utterly disagree with cra's stance on this issue for two main reasons.

firstly, if you look at the number of countries with local music quotas, there are plenty in favour of it. canada, for example, have a 35% quota, to be used between 6am and 10pm. sure, these days they probably rely heavily bieber to push that through, but it's been in place since 1971, with a number of new stations in the last 10 years being licensed with a 40% quota (probably so artists other than bieber get played). australia has a piddly version of that, so why are we complaining?

let me refer to our ol' mate wikipedia for a moment: "similar domestic content quota laws also exist in the philippines, mexico, nigeria, israel, south africa, jamaica, venezuela and new zealand – also in the united kingdom, ireland, and france (which now have a european union content rule rather than a domestic one). the united states does not have any domestic content regulations, and any implementation of such a rule would face legal challenges under press freedoms granted under the first amendment to the united states constitution. the us media industry's domestic and worldwide strength would make any such regulations mostly unnecessary."

good enough for them, how come it's not good enough for us, cra?

and if you want to know what will happen if quotas are abolished, you don't have to look far. i take you now across the pond to new zealand, whose commercial radio industry didn't have a quota system. result? in 1995, stations were playing only 1.6% new zealand content. (and what are the bets that number consisted solely of finn brothers projects?) now, they've realised how important this factor is in building a strong music industry - quotas have been slowly phased up, raising to australia's levels in 2005-6. and since then we've had kimbra, evermore, ladyhawke taking on the world... sure it seems like coincidence, but what a coincidence!

secondly, losing australian music quotas, and the inevitable loss of australian airplay **is actually is a bad thing for radio stations**. hear me out, cra. this is especially important for regional radio stations. (and i've worked in a couple.)

less australian music getting played means it's harder to get content for programs. why? because if you're not playing a track, you can't interview an artist. and if all the artists you're playing are from overseas, because that's what's been pushed into the charts by other stations, it's a lot harder for announcers and producers to get interviews. it's even harder to get tickets to tours for promotions, because most of the time **they're not playing gigs in australia**. sure, this may not be a big deal for your massive flagship names like hamish & andy or that vile pair whose name i refuse to speak in polite conversation, who have enough listeners and contacts to make it worth the pr team's time, but for little stations on the wrong side of the blue mountains or running as independent stations, it makes getting current music-related content really hard. and if you haven't got unique program content, why would listeners bother tuning in?

for cra to advocate dropping quotas is not only betraying the australian music industry, it's also betraying their own members by making their jobs harder, reducing the overall popularity of australian music, making it less viable to play, and therefore making it harder to create good program content.

oh, and digital radio skewing competition with their exemption? cra have been the biggest pushers of digital radio (possibly so they could get to this point?) and a good chunk of the stations on my digital, canberran dial are cra stations (more in metropolitan centres). then there's the fact that digital is only on in metro markets, trialing in canberra and darwin, and isn't expected to roll out to regional areas until *at least* 2014 (but more likely to be 2016 or up to ten years after that, judging from fm rollout in the 80's-90's), it's easy to think cra are kicking up a stink of their own making.

i love working in commercial radio, but i am also an australian music supporter, so this sort of nonsense from the industry body irritates me beyond belief.