Posts by chris
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I'm mystified as to what you mean by "already available online", but whatever.
If i want to see or hear New Zealand content, there are 1000s on youtube, why does the Government need to pay to make more?
-
If it meant they had less time and fewer resources, it hardly seems a stretch to suppose so.
What do you think?
I think money doesn't really come into it unless your Def Leppard
Bleach
Bleach has sold north of 1.7 million copies -- quite an accomplishment for an album that, on its back cover, wryly proclaims that it cost a paltry $500 to record the 13 tracks. I'm not sure anyone told Kurt Cobain of its populatiry, though -- before launching into "About a Girl" from Nirvana's MTV Unplugged set in 1994, the singer deadpans, "This is off our first record. Most people don't own it."
Please Please Me
at 10:00 am on Monday, 11 February 1963 at EMI Studios (whose name was later changed to Abbey Road Studios), The Beatles and George Martin started recording what was essentially their live act in 1963, and finished 585 minutes later (9 hours and 45 minutes).
and that $100, 000 to record an album is perhaps extravagant.
-
Are you really saying the artists I listed earlier would have made better records with no support whatsoever?
Are you saying they would have made worse records without the handouts? Sorry, a continuation of my questions before Russell, I'm still waiting for definitive answer as to why we need to see more of NZ on air, given that it's readily available online.
obviously as Mike mentioned
As you said at the start, there are a lot of people who have benefitted financially, whose businesses are effectively 50% or thereabouts subsidised by NZ On Air’s existence. So there’s going to be fairly powerful vested interests within the NZ music industry who are going to want that $60m just to be rolling over, adjusted for inflation, and given another ten years.
But beyond certain people and groups' vested interests?
-
Sadly, I'm making a curry
Enjoy.
I'm not interrogating you, if I were you'd be buzzing with electricity, but I can see where you'd get that from. Not wishing to curry undue favour, but I think you could take it as a underhanded compliment of sorts Russell, in that you are seen in many ways as part of the establishment ; ) You're knowledgeable and experienced on these matters, and yet, you provide thoughtful and balanced answers to questions when the most relevant parties will not.
-
I still don't understand what your underlying motive is in championing the concept of funding schemes Russell. Some of the ideas you and others present on ways to fine tune the system are not bad, assuming these systems must stay. But why must they stay?
and were obliged to move to develop their careers -- is not the fault of NZ On Air.
If you look at a list of video and single grants for the last umpteen years, your suggestion to move to Auckland to develop your career is sound advice, but I don't feel that move to Auckland to get a single or video grant truly exemplifies the mandate of the scheme as intended;
(1) The primary functions of the Commission are—
(a) to reflect and develop New Zealand identity and culture by—Why retain a scheme that would distort our cultural landscape so much? How is forcing New Zealand musicians/videomakers to compete against government made videos, anything but a hurdle in the path of the aspiring artist? Assuming $5000 can buy you a pretty decent camera/ recording setup these days, why is the government not fulfilling it's more crucial mandate in encouraging young New Zealanders to develop savings habits?
Why continue giving this money away to the few when it could provide practise rooms, recording spaces, film gear to the many, under the management of councils?
Why do you need to see more of New Zealand on radio and TV? Just look out the window.
-
< quote>was a matter of me beating my head against the wall.</ quote>
downhill battle....? read-downward spiral/ uphill battle.
-
I'd welcome hearing more about which parts of the system could change, and leaving personalities out of it
Fair enough, but over the years, every suggestion and his dog has been bandied around, there's seldom anything distinctly new, and despite that perpetual sense that change is imminent, as music month passes, so does the public interest. Russell's idea today sounded fresh, but as you said Russell,
I don't know how this would sit with the Broadcasting Act as it stands
It does seem to be outside the mandate. From the many years devoted to these discussions it does seem that NZOA is impervious to the influence of external pressure.
it would however be refreshing to hear some suggestions for change coming from within the organization, though I'm not sure here would be the best place to do that considering the personal nature of some of the attacks in recent years, which clearly have taken us nowhere.
Your last post was good Robbie. You're quite readable when you're offering solutions rather than handling the man.
I always feel that these grants in some way take the eye off the prize to a certain extent, and while the fame of a moderate rotate video/ single can in some ways appease the artists desire to 'make it' Often times it seems to be a downhill battle once they lose the favour of the funding agencies, having achieved a profile without having put in the necessary work/ produced their best product/ reached their true potential as would be required of artists in a truly equal opportunity commercial environment.
I don't know how this would sit with the Broadcasting Act as it stands
If you need any work done, I know a guy who does renovations jibbing etc for a reasonable rate. Sorry about that again.
-
he just gets on does what he wants, (and usually very well!) whatever anyone else may think, with an impressive work ethic and social conscience, I'd put him up there as an aspirational model rather than a bleater
Yeah, he's a pioneering legend, it's a bit of tongue in cheek, he was one of the first voices I heard publicly criticizing NZOA during an all too brief phase a five years back, when he was having a bit of difficulty getting funding for the entire She'll Be Right records roster.
"Getting An NZ-On-Air Grant For Dummies"
it's easy:
1. wine and dine radio/tv/nz on air people.
2. invite them to your wedding.
3. invite them to your friday drinks down at the label office.
- in time you shall become really great pals.
(all so superficial of course, but when one is so fake one can't see it.
it's disguised as love thru the thin veil of popularity)
4. then when you have a new project coming out you invite
your new best friends round for another drinkies night.
5. when they are drunk slip them a cd. tell them it's the new big thing
and that you have thousands of dollars tied up in the project.
6. put the grant forms in.
7. bingo - you are on the list!
8. send off your bank account number.Then he got back on the horse. He's certainly not alone in being someone who ripped Brendon a new hole at some point in time. It's this tendency of the scheme, to cheese good artists off, that I take umbrage at.
-
spookily synchronous posting, Joe
Muskateers? Ghostbusters, Ninja Turtles? John, Paul, George and Ringo? Jerry, George, Elaine and Kramer? Leonard, Howard, Sheldon and Rajesh? Mount Rushmore.
-
That is funny
Fair dos, it wasn't high class. and I'll get off your ass. I really had no intention of getting on your ass. It's certainly not personal. Despite my previous few posts, I'm pretty easy either way with NZOA, it's a little more transparent than the way things are handled here. Mainly I just thought Robbie looked a bit lonely writing 75% of posts per page ; )
It does seem kind of odd that Tradenz compiles a sampler CD to pitch to foreign ad agencies, but there is (as far as I know) no equivalent here. And yet there's the Kiwi Hit Disc for radio. Do you see what I'm saying?
Yes, I do.
Personally, I'm a bit of a fan of shutting the whole thing down, level playing field and all that. But I see a certain self absorbed gratification that comes from being on the outer with things like this, my main feeling is that life is short and the easiest way to get around these problems is by artists putting their own money where their mouths are.
accountability is never a bad thing IMHO.
it is about the music biz that spawns so many embittered "failures and rejects". I had thought that Robbery was the sole example.
I'd previously thought Jody Lloyd was the sole example, I have no stake in all this. Just thinking of the kids....
This discussion comes around like clockwork every year, might as well enjoy it. Although it gets harder and harder to come up with new angles...