Posts by chris
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Given the almost total lack of international return for that $60mill, If all that's required is some NZ produced sound alike pap to slot between advertisements on radio and TV, what not just hire a liaiason guy to deal with the requirements of the broadcasters, hire a couple of song writers, fire the board, and keep a New Zealand On Air House band on the payroll. Would the results be markedly different?
you're never going to
(a) to reflect and develop New Zealand identity and culture by—
..while a select few broadcasters are making the choices. If they were serious about reflecting New Zealand's identity, they'd randomly allocate the grants.
-
Sorry, I'd reached daily word limit.
-
Your Autotune line was funnier Sam. Why did you edit it?
-
Jeez, that interview started well and...
It could be argued that there is a case to be made that the people who don't get any support could be competing with those who do.
-
By that logic,then, the government should give up on any form of industry development, and settle for being a cultural and economic client state.
If that development can bring reasonable economic returns into New Zealand rather than simply being a swill-go-round I don't see a reason to shy away from the development of industry. But one could hardly make a case that the music industry has succeeded at anywhere near the level of the film industry. Beyonce isn't coming to York Street to record her next album.
... had famous friends and access to David Geffen, and thereby money and MTV
All for $500 and a ton of sweat.
The whole point of funding (or otherwise protecting) local content is that artists in tiny markets face a tide of highly produced content (TV, music, whatever) that they can hardy aspire to taking on on a business level.
ACDC
Would there have been Outrageous Fortune if local TV networks faced the choice of spending millions of dollars producing it, or spending a few thousand buying a US network show? No.
I don't have an issue with the TV aspect of things. given the business plan required in terms of the level of organization, number of people employed, level of accountability to get the grants is significantly greater, and the benefite considerably more visible, I fully support this in fact.
But paying $50,000 to 4 guys with a drug habit to produce 14 songs? ha!
-
Worth every cent.
"Wilson, just an ear, but what an ear"
-
According to studio records and since verified by Jimmy Page himself, Led Zeppelin purchased 36 hours of studio time to record Led Zeppelin I (this includes mixing). Including artwork and studio time the album collectively cost Led Zeppelin 1750 pounds.
or
On the contrary to Led Zeppelin and The Beatles, The Beach Boys took an ungodly amount of time and money (by 1966 standards) to record the Brian Wilson masterpiece "Good Vibrations". This song was recorded over the course of 6 months. "Good Vibrations" was recorded in 17 different sections at 4 different studios. The first section recorded took 26 takes alone. In the end the recording sessions cost $50,000, and used 90 hours of tape. It is rumored that $15,000 of the recording costs went to capturing the right theramin take. Brian Wilson had a vision and used the studio, multi-tracking and tape to build a 'pocket symphony'. Though costly and by no means done efficiently or in a timely manner, this is a masterpiece. This song is a fine example of a band using the studio as a tool to perform something they couldn't do live. Approaches to recording have forever been altered since. I couldn't imagine the work that went into building one cohesive song out of 90 reels of tape and hundreds of takes they had at their disposal.
-
What's with the NZ Government's dutch courage in believing they can compete in that arena?
-
But Bleach had only sold 30,000 copies before it got to piggbyback on the success of a much more expensively recorded-in-Hollywood-for-a-major-label follow up ($65K in 1991 money). A follow-up that took off because of MTV's high rotate of a well-made video ...
None of which was funded by the US Government. I'm not sure why you began that sentence with a contrasting subordinating conjuction when you're providing additional information to support the case that very little money is sufficent to get the attention of major players. In this case DGC.
-
I thought I'd gone on at some length.
ah, I just found you wrote the post in the spot where you said you were cooking the curry. Thanks Russell, not a bad answer. Sorry for any misunderstandings there. Certainly the developments you mention would have been untenable without NZOA. But most would argue that now, with the infrastructure so firmly established, that it wouldn't be a bad time to see if this puppy really floats.
I don't mean underlying motive in any negative sense. Genuine curiosity in what you're into;
Because they've helped bring to birth a bunch of great records that otherwise might not have been made to the same standard.
Production. Not a biggie for some, but certainly the lubricant for the masses.
And your argument that NZOA funding competitively penalises the people who don't get it doesn't really stack up. Firstly, the people who don't get any support generally aren't actually competing with the people who do.
Certainly not in an artificially manipulated environment as you have there, but I'd hasten to point out, everyone is competing.