MIKEB
The King Of Rationality
Posts: 4,536
|
Post by MIKEB on May 20, 2005 17:53:13 GMT -5
CanCon is a form of discrimination, period. It's affirmative action on a promotional level. Replace "Canadian music stars" with "black artists" or "minority artists" and people would be yelling discrimination. It should be up to radio stations to play music that their listeners want to hear, not force feed certain music for personal gain. That's the funniest thing I've read in a while! So I guess Black Heretige month is a form of discrimination too. And Gay Pride Parades? LOL!
|
|
|
Post by jcmf3 on May 25, 2005 14:43:24 GMT -5
That's the funniest thing I've read in a while! So I guess Black Heretige month is a form of discrimination too. And Gay Pride Parades? LOL! Those are not "required" activities. Those are things put on to spread awareness, but there are no laws stating they have to happen. You think that the government should pass a law stating that a city has to put on a Gay Pride Parade? And ditto for Black Heritage Month. That is not something that discriminates. It is informational. CanCon, from what I have read, is not an "informational" tool. It is a way to favor certain artists over others, and that is inherently discriminatory. If Canadian artists can't live up to the popularity and stardom of other artists, then that's too bad in my book. This crutch is affirmative action, and I am against any form of affirmative action.
|
|
MIKEB
The King Of Rationality
Posts: 4,536
|
Post by MIKEB on May 28, 2005 19:06:02 GMT -5
And ditto for Black Heritage Month. That is not something that discriminates. It is informational. CanCon, from what I have read, is not an "informational" tool. It is a way to favor certain artists over others, and that is inherently discriminatory. If Canadian artists can't live up to the popularity and stardom of other artists, then that's too bad in my book. This crutch is affirmative action, and I am against any form of affirmative action. It's not about "living up to popularity". It's about keeping hold of the art of our own population that continues to get overpowered by American culture. If there was no CanCon rule, Canadian artists would probably get maybe 1% airplay and Celine Dion, Avril Lavigne, Alanis, etc, would probably never have any success at all because, while their American success occurred around the same time as their Canadian success, they still had to have had a start here on some level. I guess you'd rather live in a world where the same 10 singers get played on the radio all the time. Not I. I'm for any rule that allows for more variety and more of our own cultures getting any help toward success. Usher and Jennifer Lopez don't need anymore airtime.
|
|
Feelin' X
Member à la Québécoise
Are You Feelin' X?
Posts: 7,495
|
Post by Feelin' X on May 29, 2005 10:05:41 GMT -5
And ditto for Black Heritage Month. That is not something that discriminates. It is informational. CanCon, from what I have read, is not an "informational" tool. It is a way to favor certain artists over others, and that is inherently discriminatory. If Canadian artists can't live up to the popularity and stardom of other artists, then that's too bad in my book. This crutch is affirmative action, and I am against any form of affirmative action. It's not about "living up to popularity". It's about keeping hold of the art of our own population that continues to get overpowered by American culture. If there was no CanCon rule, Canadian artists would probably get maybe 1% airplay and Celine Dion, Avril Lavigne, Alanis, etc, would probably never have any success at all because, while their American success occurred around the same time as their Canadian success, they still had to have had a start here on some level. I guess you'd rather live in a world where the same 10 singers get played on the radio all the time. Not I. I'm for any rule that allows for more variety and more of our own cultures getting any help toward success. Usher and Jennifer Lopez don't need anymore airtime. I have to second you
|
|
|
Post by billcs on May 29, 2005 16:42:08 GMT -5
CanCon is a form of discrimination, period. It's affirmative action on a promotional level. Replace "Canadian music stars" with "black artists" or "minority artists" and people would be yelling discrimination. It should be up to radio stations to play music that their listeners want to hear, not force feed certain music for personal gain. Then... most Canadian artists would never get heard because of immediate influences from the U.S. This is about cultural identity within one's own country. The U.S. does not have this problem with music by Americans. I worked with equity issues (in the workplace and in the community) for a school board in two of my previous jobs. You are stretching the boundaries for which the term 'affirmative action' would apply in your example. It is not all-encompassing.
|
|
|
Post by jcmf3 on May 31, 2005 14:56:01 GMT -5
You are stretching the boundaries for which the term 'affirmative action' would apply in your example. It is not all-encompassing. Please explain. Affirmative action is defined as: "A policy or a program that seeks to redress past discrimination through active measures to ensure equal opportunity" Why wouldn't CanCon be an example of this?
|
|
|
Post by jcmf3 on May 31, 2005 14:59:52 GMT -5
I guess you'd rather live in a world where the same 10 singers get played on the radio all the time. Not I. I'm for any rule that allows for more variety and more of our own cultures getting any help toward success. Usher and Jennifer Lopez don't need anymore airtime. It's not about the same 10 artists or not. It's about allowing artists to be played on a radio station without being mandated to play them. How would you like it if the Canadian government ordered that Artist A had to played on X stations every day? You think it is right to take away airtime from other artists because the government mandates it? Don't you want to have more control over what you listen to, not have a mandate put in place for it? What's next? Consumers have to buy X% of Canadian goods. Stores have to supply X% of Canadian goods. Am I the only one that sees the inherent problems with this mentality? And for the record, I only want to stimulate conversation, not be attacking towards people. Please don't take these posts in an offensive or attacking way. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by billcs on May 31, 2005 19:31:15 GMT -5
I think most people in Canada are quite happy to have a quota in place in order to see our artists flourish and perhaps go on to national or international success. You've got to compare Canada's 24 million to the huge U.S. population to understand. There is no quota in the U.S. required for music to be played on the radio, because there's such a huge population that the music balances out in some unfathomable way. This is about cultural identity within our own country. I believe Australia has something similar too.
As I said, you're really stretching the definition, even the one you provided, of affirmative action. Affirmative action, the way I understand it, relates to people - women, visible and racial minorities, gays/lesbians - who have been disadvantaged socially and professionally. Canadian performers have not been disadvantaged in Canada in the broad way that I understand affirmative action to represent. They do not require an equal opportunity, otherwise we would have a 50% requirement.
That's how I see it. I would say we'll probably have to agree to disagree...
|
|
MIKEB
The King Of Rationality
Posts: 4,536
|
Post by MIKEB on Jun 1, 2005 15:37:38 GMT -5
It's not about the same 10 artists or not. It's about allowing artists to be played on a radio station without being mandated to play them. How would you like it if the Canadian government ordered that Artist A had to played on X stations every day? You think it is right to take away airtime from other artists because the government mandates it? Don't you want to have more control over what you listen to, not have a mandate put in place for it? A rule where radio HAS to play a % of songs by artist A would never occur because that's stupid and not even a valid comparison. In a country where our own cultures and our own arts are being buried by a more powerful country basically being done for the purposes of profits, things need to be done to keep our own people somehow above the surface or else they'd sink. Without CanCon, the Canadian music industry would pretty much be nonexistant and anyone that thinks the CanCon rule shouldn't exist is pretty much ignorant to that fact. What's next? Consumers have to buy X% of Canadian goods. Stores have to supply X% of Canadian goods. Am I the only one that sees the inherent problems with this mentality? Actually, I think other things like Canadian-based magazines and stuff also have to have a minimum amount of Canadian product. Not sure if Canadian-based stores have to have a % of Canadian product or not but I wouldn't be surprised. It's basically for the purpose of keeping our own things afloat.
|
|