Quantcast
 Everett True

Triple J. Setting music back for a new generation

Decrease Font Size Increase Font Size Text Size Print This Page

The following is lifted from Andrew McMillen’s National Affairs article in the January 2012 edition of Australian Rolling Stone:

What happens when your band wins the musical equivalent of the lottery, the triple j Unearthed slot to open the main stage of Splendour In The Grass? In 2011, the competition was won by Brisbane indie pop band Millions. Twenty-two-year-old drummer James Wright is being a little humble by equating the contest to a lottery: those rely on luck alone, not songwriting talent.

Still, it’s curious to hear Wright honestly state Millions’ intentions upon forming in December 2010. “The entire objective of the band was using triple j to get where we want to go,” he says. A four-piece comprised of members from three Brisbane bands you’ve never heard of, Millions realised during their initial rehearsals that their sound might appeal to the national broadcaster.

“There was the fleeting chance that, if we maybe more deliberately went towards the triple j sort of sound, in terms of being more accessible than our previous bands, then we might have a shot at actually doing some good, and getting played,” Wright says. “We didn’t exactly have high aspirations for it, but we were really happy with the two songs we’d written [at the time].”

He says that Millions are “the exact opposite” of their previous bands, in that their path was “extremely thought through, to the point of calculating exactly how many shows it would take us to get where we wanted to go, and to who we should play these shows with and why we should do them and where we should play them.” The Splendour 2011 slot was unexpected for the band, and “pretty much blew everyone’s mind” according to Wright, but not unsurprising given their ambitions.

Stephen Green is well acquainted with this kind of mindset among artists. Since beginning as a radio “plugger” – a guy who pitches new music to stations across the country – he now runs his own publicity consulting business, SGC Media.

“The problem of triple j being so dominant is that it artistically skews what some bands are coming out with,” he says. “If you’ve got the opportunity to do the song that’s in your head that’s not very ‘triple j’, or you tweak it somewhat and make it sound like bands that are getting airplay… I think a lot of bands are going down [the second] path a little more.”

“Didn’t I write somewhere on Collapseboard [about this]?” asks Jack Sargeant on Facebook.

Yes, you did, Jack. it was back in August, when Australian prime minister Julia Gillard was pictured posing with a pair of triple j breakfast DJs, to launch the start of a new, government-funded initiative, triple j’s digital Unearthed radio station. (triple j, for non-Australian readers, is the national ‘youth-orientated’ radio station, state-funded along the lines of the BBC, but run on a much narrower brief – mostly following the musical ‘taste’ of station boss Richard Kingsmill, whose idea of what comprises decent music is based on an appreciation of the NME during the 90s.)

Here’s what you wrote:

The best bands, the true greats, created their work because they had to. There was simply no choice. Not just compelled, but utterly driven by their vision. Invariably many created against the odds. We’re talking Mississippi John Hurt, Albert Ayler, Link Wray, Tiny Tim, Love, Captain Beefheart, The Velvet Underground, The Stooges, Suicide, Throbbing Gristle, Teenage Jesus, This Heat, Sonic Youth etc etc etc … people who created art that articulated something from deep within themselves, often running counter to popular tastes. None of them searched for fame, just the opportunity to share their vision from a stage or – if they were lucky enough – through a recording. Some found minor success, a few a degree of fame, but most didn’t, that wasn’t what it was about.

Think of the proto-hardcore Black Flag crisscrossing America in their truck, playing gig-after-grueling-gig. Keep moving: don’t stop. Think of Crass turning a rural farmhouse into the base of a new subculture, or Billy Childish churning out hundreds of albums on almost as many indie labels. There was no choice for these people. This was a commitment to a life.

The urge to create was (and is) so immense that bands, fanzine writers, people putting on gigs or starting record labels have all taken up the challenge. While frequently attributed to ‘punk’, this is simply the most commonly articulated version of a far wider urge in which communities of likeminded individuals would come together and sometimes subcultures would develop – think of the folk music scene in 50s Greenwich Village or the sound systems of Jamaica during the same era. Ultimately these people did it simply because no body else was and they did it because you couldn’t trust somebody else not to fuck it up.

Now triple j has announced the launch of its new digital Unearthed radio station, with the noble cause of helping emergent bands reach a wider audience. Noble, sure, but passionless and safer than ducklings. There seems little risk of any danger. How can a band or a musical community develop and create something new if it is aimed so surely at the masses and the, at best, nebulous aims of reaching an audience? Artistic ambition should be about self-expression, not appearing on digital radio. Depressingly, the station appears to be sanctioned by elected officials at the highest level. Watch the trailer and, alongside a handful of musicians, are the voices of politicians Peter Garrett, Julia Gillard and Steven Conroy (yes, the man who wants to censor the Internet). Do we really want to leave our expression to a medium so readily sanctioned by these people?

Hopefully, somewhere, somebody is sitting with their band, getting ready to change music again, far away from the establishment. Here’s hoping people care enough to search it out.

Interestingly enough, both parts of what Jack predicted are happening.

On one side are Millions and numerous journeymen bands like them, specifically altering their sound so they can get funding and radio plays.

And on the other are the bands playing squats and disused warehouses and living rooms, doing it because it’s fun not because they think it might be an easy career: Royal Headache and Kitchen’s Floor and The Native Cats, dozens of bands across the country, fuelled by a DIY ethic. It’s interesting. Folk often complain about the shite music played on triple j, but – to take that Millions quote (and several others in Andrew’s story) as an example, most of this shite music wouldn’t even exist if it wasn’t for the existence of triple j. Need further proof it’s shite? Have a look at which Australian bands are feted by critics abroad … and no, it’s not the fucking Hilltop Hoods and Got-Icehouse-ye.

In fairness, one of my contacts, Andrew Stone – director at Rare Finds Publicity – doesn’t think it’s as straightforward as that.

He wrote on my Facebook wall:

As the bloke who pitched Millions to triple j in the first place, I think you’re missing the point. They wrote some good songs, had a relevant sound, bit of an image, triple j played them. End of story. Whether they consciously tailored their sound to triple j or not, I think their influences are broader than serving one cynical purpose.

Maybe he’s right. Maybe that’s just how funding works. Government-driven organisations demand you tick the right boxes, use the correct language, play the ‘right’ music. The grants, the awards go to the people who are the best at filling out the grant forms, fitting in the best with the prevalent status quo. Wow. What a way to write a song. What a way to run a radio station.

As someone else commented on Facebook:

Unearthed is badly run. The national youth broadcaster should not be running a contest but showcasing music from all over the country. I believe it fails regional Australia.

So what are the functions of the Corporation? They are:

  • (a) to provide within Australia innovative and comprehensive broadcasting services of a high standard as part of the Australian broadcasting system consisting of national, commercial and community sectors and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, to provide:
  • (i) broadcasting programs that contribute to a sense of national identity and inform and entertain, and reflect the cultural diversity of, the Australian community; and
  • (ii) broadcasting programs of an educational nature;
  • (b) to transmit to countries outside Australia broadcasting programs of news, current affairs, entertainment and cultural enrichment that will:
  • (i) encourage awareness of Australia and an international understanding of Australian attitudes on world affairs; and
  • (ii) enable Australian citizens living or travelling outside Australia to obtain information about Australian affairs and Australian attitudes on world affairs; and
  • (c) to encourage and promote the musical, dramatic and other performing arts in Australia.

Just a thought, but is a) best served by slavishly playing Australian bands who’ve determinedly altered their sound so that they sound like all the other bands played on triple j, who also (coincidentally) sound American or British … ?

I have a new slogan for the corporation: Triple J. Setting music back for a new generation.

ADDENDA

[I wouldn’t normally do this, but I think the next series of points – lifted from the comment section below – are particularly pertinent – Ed]

Matt O’Neill:
To be perfectly honest, I think this is all daft.

There have always been bands who have tailored their sound to a popular contemporary aesthetic. Likewise, there have always been bands who have disregarded those ambitions. Neither approach is inherently more valuable than the other. All that matters is the end result. I mean – did we not just have a gigantic fucking discussion around these parts wherein it was basically concluded that the entire concept of authenticity was a complete fabrication?

Now, if you don’t agree with all of that, I suppose I have a question – what do you think these bands would do if Triple J weren’t around to give them a target? Do you think they’d immediately start seeking out their own path? Or stop making music altogether? Personally, I suspect they’d just find something else to shape their sound. If there is a problem with this model (and, personally, I don’t think there is) – it isn’t with the station. It’s with the musicians.

Everett True:
Look at the mission statement, Matt. The functions of the Corporation are:

(a) to provide within Australia innovative and comprehensive broadcasting services of a high standard as part of the Australian broadcasting system consisting of national, commercial and community sectors and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, to provide:
(i) broadcasting programs that contribute to a sense of national identity and inform and entertain, and reflect the cultural diversity of, the Australian community

It doesn’t do that. It’s a state-funded government radio station, and it doesn’t do that. Fuck questions of authenticity. That’s nothing to do with what I’m talking about here (Jack’s quote might have been a bit of a red herring as far as that was concerned, I’ll admit). triple j does NOT reflect the cultural diversity of the Australian community and it does NOT contribute to a sense of national identity. And if the government was stricter in maintaining its funding controls, it would cut the flow of money RIGHT NOW on those grounds alone.

triple j could step outside their own brief, Matt. They could invite a plurality of tastes to help determine what’s played on the station. They could genuinely champion new music and new scenes and new regions by broadening their scope (and maybe even thereby broadening their audience). They could easily do that. They’re funded by state. They don’t have to continue to kowtow to one man’s idea of what ‘good’ music is, based on a model which is not only not Australian, but also at least a decade out of date.

Aside from that, mostly I agree with you. All music is shaped by what’s going on around you, the musician. It’s just … I dunno … it’s just that I never really saw that filling in a grant application to be the most fertile pool of inspiration to draw from. Perhaps you disagree with me.

Who decides what’s commercial? It’s not the audience. You create your own audience.

A more interesting question is, what would happen if triple j started playing music that wasn’t specifically designed to be played on triple j? What would happen then? Or is that one of those self-perpetuating thingamajigs?

I guess what it comes down to is this:

There have always been bands who have tailored their sound to a popular contemporary aesthetic. Likewise, there have always been bands who have disregarded those ambitions. Neither approach is inherently more valuable than the other. All that matters is the end result.

And the end-result – as featured hour in, hour out on triple j – is shite. It’s supposed to represent Australian culture and it doesn’t even do that, unless you’re arguing that most all Australian culture is sloppily-pilfered, fifth-rate versions of American and British culture. A brave argument, but perhaps not one to be had here. Culture can thrive outside the mainstream obviously: it doesn’t mean however that the mainstream should turn its back on it. Especially not a mainstream that is (rather laughably) claiming to be ‘alternative’.

It’s a disgrace that a government-funded national radio station aimed at promoting Australian cultural diversity is run by a man who doesn’t believe in the value of Australian cultural diversity.

Related posts:
Rolling Stone story: ‘The Discovery Channel: triple j’s power over Australian music’, January 2012
Triple J Unearthed and the Great Monopolisation of Australian Music
Safe as ducklings: triple j to launch new Australian-only digital radio station, Unearthed
Triple J Week – the week in numbers
An interview with Richard Kingsmill, triple j Music Director

27 Responses to Triple J. Setting music back for a new generation

  1. Huge January 10, 2012 at 3:50 pm

    This is the direct result of concentrated decision-making in teh hands of one person. Of course the result is going to be homogenous, and when that one man has that power for so long, it becomes a brand and a habit.

    Do we want the Js to provide a diversity of music or just to be a slightly-non-mainstream alternative to Austereo? Put the programming decisions in the hands of people (plural) to meet whichever end you choose.

    I don’t listen to any radio unless I’m trapped in a waiting room … it’s all bollocks. It’s just that the JJs pretend to be an alternative to the bollocks …

  2. Matt January 10, 2012 at 4:02 pm

    To be perfectly honest, I think this is all daft.

    There have always been bands who have tailored their sound to a popular contemporary aesthetic. Likewise, there have always been bands who have disregarded those ambitions. Neither approach is inherently more valuable than the other. All that matters is the end result. I mean – did we not just have a gigantic fucking discussion around these parts wherein it was basically concluded that the entire concept of authenticity was a complete fabrication?

    Now, if you don’t agree with all of that, I suppose I have a question – what do you think these bands would do if Triple J weren’t around to give them a target? Do you think they’d immediately start seeking out their own path? Or stop making music altogether? Personally, I suspect they’d just find something else to shape their sound. If there is a problem with this model (and, personally, I don’t think there is) – it isn’t with the station. It’s with the musicians.

  3. Everett True January 10, 2012 at 4:30 pm

    Look at the mission statement, Matt. The functions of the Corporation are:

    (a) to provide within Australia innovative and comprehensive broadcasting services of a high standard as part of the Australian broadcasting system consisting of national, commercial and community sectors and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, to provide:
    (i) broadcasting programs that contribute to a sense of national identity and inform and entertain, and reflect the cultural diversity of, the Australian community

    It doesn’t do that. It’s a state-funded government radio station, and it doesn’t do that. Fuck questions of authenticity. That’s nothing to do with what I’m talking about here (Jack’s quote might have been a bit of a red herring as far as that was concerned, I’ll admit). triple j does NOT reflect the cultural diversity of the Australian community and it does NOT contribute to a sense of national identity. And if the government was stricter in maintaining its funding controls, it would cut the flow of money RIGHT NOW on those grounds alone.

    triple j could step outside their own brief, Matt. They could invite a plurality of tastes to help determine what’s played on the station. They could genuinely champion new music and new scenes and new regions by broadening their scope (and maybe even thereby broadening their audience). They could easily do that. They’re funded by state. They don’t have to continue to kowtow to one man’s idea of what ‘good’ music is, based on a model which is not only not Australian, but also at least a decade out of date.

    Aside from that, mostly I agree with you. All music is shaped by what’s going on around you, the musician. It’s just … I dunno … it’s just that I never really saw that filling in a grant application to be the most fertile pool of inspiration to draw from. Perhaps you disagree with me.

    Who decides what’s commercial? It’s not the audience. You create your own audience.

    A more interesting question is, what would happen if triple j started playing music that wasn’t specifically designed to be played on triple j? What would happen then? Or is that one of those self-perpetuating thingamajigs?

    I guess what it comes down to is this:

    There have always been bands who have tailored their sound to a popular contemporary aesthetic. Likewise, there have always been bands who have disregarded those ambitions. Neither approach is inherently more valuable than the other. All that matters is the end result.

    And the end-result – as featured hour in, hour out on triple j – is shite. It’s supposed to represent Australian culture and it doesn’t even do that, unless you’re arguing that most all Australian culture is sloppily-pilfered, fifth-rate versions of American and British culture. A brave argument, but perhaps not one to be had here. Culture can thrive outside the mainstream obviously: it doesn’t mean however that the mainstream should turn its back on it. Especially not a mainstream that is (rather laughably) claiming to be ‘alternative’.

    It’s a disgrace that a government-funded national radio station aimed at promoting Australian cultural diversity is run by a man who doesn’t believe in the value of Australian cultural diversity.

  4. Mav January 10, 2012 at 4:44 pm

    If triple j is meant to reflect their audience and what they want to hear why doesn’t their programming reflect their unearthed charts?

  5. Matt January 10, 2012 at 4:55 pm

    I suppose those are quite valid complaints. I often fall into the trap of just thinking of Triple J as a commercial enterprise as opposed to a government-funded cultural enterprise.

    The problem with this kind of argument, though, is that it is contingent on the assumption that there is a definable Australian culture to be represented. Personally, I agree with you that Triple J does not represent my perception of that culture – but I don’t think your perception of that culture is representative of mine, either. I like all the bands you mentioned but I don’t identify with any of them. I do actually identify with a handful of Australian bands played by Triple J (albeit not the majority).

    On that topic, there’s also an issue of what is an acceptable level of informing and shaping that culture – because Triple J currently do shape and inform *an* Australian culture. It just happens to be a culture we don’t really feel connected with…

    I don’t know. Complicated issue, I think.

  6. darragh January 10, 2012 at 4:56 pm

    I haven’t listened to much BBC radio, but the little I have, its equivalent ‘youth’ station (i.e radio 4) seems streets ahead of Triple J. An example of state funded radio done well then?

  7. Matt January 10, 2012 at 4:57 pm

    Now, Mav – THAT is a pretty incredible question. I actually would like to see an official response to that…

  8. Matt January 10, 2012 at 4:58 pm

    Darragh – BBC fucking nail radio. The sheer scope of what they cover across their various iterations (and the nature in which they cover it) is exemplary. It’s amazing.

    It’s also, I suspect, an advantage of having such a massive fucking population.

  9. Ben January 10, 2012 at 5:05 pm

    With respect, this post is highly judgmental. The word “shite” pops up more than a few times. I’m not sure if the arguments that are being made would stand up as well if a reader (like myself) refused to accept the assertion that much of what is played on triple J is “shite”.

    Maybe you’re right when you say that Triple J is not living up to or working within its brief as a government-funded broadcaster. To varying degrees, the ABC at large is failing the same way, according to your standards. There is far more content that one would consider “commercial” on the ABC and SBS TV channels than, perhaps, ten years ago. However, I enjoy a lot of it. That doesn’t mean it reflects Australia’s cultural diversity, but I like to watch it, and I don’t really mind if my taxpayer dollars are funding it. Nevertheless, it seems that you do.

    That is fair enough. I’m not particularly happy when a government-run institution fails to do what it is meant to do. However, in saying all that, you must acknowledge that you are making as much of a subjective judgement as Richard Kingsmill, perhaps even more so. Yet, it’s his job to make programming decisions, and you cannot always expect them to be the same decisions you would make. Of course he would be influenced by factors other than a “pure” artistic vision, such as what is likely to gain an audience. That is the reality of trying to run a radio station, indeed, of running any enterprise involving the creative arts.

    I don’t believe this is a debate you can win by asserting that Richard Kingsmill or anyone else has an inferior understanding of what “Australian” culture is. I do not believe that we should ape the British or Americans, but our culture is inevitably informed by theirs. As much as we should welcome the influence of all heritages, striving for an artificial multiculturalism, whether determined by some anonymous music blogger or by some mythical, omniscient committee of artistic geniuses (as opposed to organic multiculturalism that grows with time and through constant, uncontrollable reinvention) would be as abominable as promoting the monoculture of John Howard.

    The Culture Wars are far broader than Triple J’s programming. You are well within your rights to criticise it, but let me exercise my right of reply by saying that your judgment of Triple J is as much of a judgment that more commercially-minded people might make about high-minded hipsters who disdain all things “mainstream”. As you might expect, I wholeheartedly reject it.

  10. darragh January 10, 2012 at 5:06 pm

    Matt – regarding one of your points above – shaping Australian music culture. Have you read this Meajin essay on JJJ from a few years back. Everett – you might find it interesting. I don’t agree with the guys conclusion, but it is interesting.

    http://meanjin.com.au/editions/volume-68-number-3-2009/article/the-curious-significance-of-triple-j/

    Also, on the BBC, I believe it’s probably because the BBC is a lot better funded than the ABC here. The BBC, at least from my view, is intricately part of British culture, whereas most people in Australia wouldn’t give a rats if the ABC imploded.

  11. darragh January 10, 2012 at 5:11 pm

    The crux of that essay revolves aroudn this problem.

    “This is the sort of moment on triple j[1] that so annoys certain musicians and fans. It gives rise to the fear that triple j, supposedly a national youth public radio network with a licence to support and ‘unearth’ new Australian contemporary music, is simply a simulacrum of commercial FM stations, with a format and a music playlist not markedly dissimilar to national commercial networks such as Nova.

    Is this the best we can expect of a taxpayer-funded national youth radio network? What exactly is the role of triple j, and is the network fulfilling it?”

  12. Matt January 10, 2012 at 5:23 pm

    I think you’re wrong about ABC – not entirely but I think it’s more important than you think. I would say, though, that it’s situation, in comparison with that of the BBC, could very much be a chicken/egg scenario.

    i.e. ABC isn’t an intrinsic part of Australian culture because they don’t represent Australian culture because they’re not an intrinsic part of Australian culture et cetera et cetera…

  13. darragh January 10, 2012 at 5:27 pm

    Well, I’d know that I’d personally be pretty disappointed if the ABC ceased to exist, mostly because of my fondness for their AM band stations i.e 612 4QR.

    Five to six years ago, I would have said the same of Triple J. That’s not the case anymore unfortunately.

  14. Matt January 10, 2012 at 5:30 pm

    That’s cause you old and out of touch, gramps. Deal with it.

  15. darragh January 10, 2012 at 5:37 pm

    Trust me, I’m trying. Commenting here is a form of therapy.

  16. Bernard Fanning January 10, 2012 at 5:55 pm

    I don’t like anything Andrew McMillan says, mor his hair. Dickhead.

  17. Simeon January 10, 2012 at 7:19 pm

    Sounds like Everett is pissed off because Triple J didn’t play his band’s music.

  18. Victoria Birch January 10, 2012 at 8:24 pm

    Totally agree with Mick James’ comment from Facebook re community stations. The output from the likes of FBI and 2ser in Sydney shame Triple J. These are independent, not-for-profit stations that cover a whole range of sounds via genre specific programs run, in the main, by volunteers. Their content is exactly what Triple J should be aspiring to: Australian focus across a wide breadth of music (more or less any genre you can think of bar classical – a large proportion new and/or unsigned).

    It is appalling that Triple J has been allowed to get away with churning out the same narrow program content for umpteen years. Successive governments perpetuate the notion of Australia as a cultural backwater by throwing cash at the station and then ticking the music/arts box as job done. That’s the difference between the BBC and the ABC – the UK government gives a shit about its investment in the arts. Nobody at a federal level here seems to have any interest in making Triple J accountable for delivering against its brief. This is public money not advertising funding at stake and yet the government is happy to continue to judge the success of the station solely on listener numbers. It shouldn’t be a bloody popularity contest.

    Funding is completely irrelevant when you look at what the community stations are able to achieve. They manage to do a fantastic job of representing Australian culture through the many and varied forms of music that exist in this country with no government support. They might lack professional polish but their content is as good, if not better than anything I’ve heard in the UK.

  19. Mick James January 11, 2012 at 9:42 am

    It is worth pointing out that the ABC as a whole has to meet it’s charter and each of the elements of the ABC plays a part in that. I don’t think it’s fair to isolate elements of the organisation and expect them to do all the things in that charter. Only the organisation as a whole should be held to that standard. JJJ does an excellent job of serving some parts of that charter and the service they provide to rural youth is extraordinary (probably incomparable in the world). Those kids need that service.

    Part of serving that audience, given that rural youth have far fewer radio choices, may well involve programming approaches and choices that aren’t so exciting to inner-city audiences. People in the capital cities have more choices. At the heart of those choices are the services provided by community radio.

    To demand too great a change from JJJ could mean:

    * the service no longer being as effective in serving young people in regional areas.
    * new problems for capital city community stations who would find it harder to raise sponsorship revenue if their points of difference with JJJ were eroded.

    I think either of those outcomes would be regrettable and both would terrible. We are very lucky in Australia with the choices we have. Yes, all three sectors, commercial, government and community, could do better. But be careful about making demands on one sector to sound more like one of the others. That could reduce diversity rather than improve it.

    Finally, it’s worth pointing out that, while the funding is only a fraction of that going to the ABC, this Federal Government (with some very effective encouragement by the Greens) is providing more support to community radio than Canberra has ever done before. The community sector still largely leads a hand to mouth existence, but that increased funding is very welcome.

  20. Rona January 11, 2012 at 11:21 am

    How many frequently played artists on Triple J are produced by the same group of producers ? That would be an interesting study – to look at groups such as the Archangelsky Group and Scott Horscroft of EMI having an influence.

  21. Rona January 11, 2012 at 11:53 am

    even in the Triple J unearthed promotion video – the three bands Stonefield, Art vs Science and Boy and Bear have strong linkages to EMI offical and producer Scott Horscroft.

  22. Marcus January 12, 2012 at 1:49 am

    scott horscroft is a great producer that said – and he’s worked on everything from this pop stuff to experimental music. I suppose its indicative that certain bands can afford to use him.

  23. Everett True January 12, 2012 at 9:24 am

    Perhaps Scott Horscroft isn’t so much a ‘great’ producer: just one that understands a certain demographic.

  24. Everett True January 12, 2012 at 2:27 pm

    I feel I ought to temporise here by reprinting the comment I left on the 12.01.11 post A Conversation With Richard Kingsmill, triple j Music Director. I appreciate I sometimes have a tendency to get carried away.

    As much as I might not like the music triple j features, and the way it skews said music – quick question: would anyone ever say that there’s such a thing as “BBC music”, the way they do about triple j – I don’t for one minute doubt that Mr Kingsmill has a massive passion for said music. I just think he needs to take in stronger outside voices, more people with disparate tastes … oh, and be concerned that the triple j “sound” is now so definable and tangible that a Brisbane band can deliberately alter their own music to win a prestigious competition.

    This is not a reflection on the man himself.

  25. Everett True January 13, 2012 at 12:21 pm

    Another related article.

    Mess + Noise Great Debate #2: Triple J Unearthed Radio

  26. Pingback: the triple j bubble | johnnyanonymity

  27. Pingback: Bourdieu and the (non)genre of Dolewave | youth class culture

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.