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.
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.
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 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
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.