Hard News: Reading Material
45 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last
-
But mostly, NZ On Air has posted We're All in This Together: Public Broadcasting in the Digital Age, a discussion paper I wrote with the assistance of Andrew Dubber.
I finally got around to reading this (in bed this morning, yay).
I found myself most interested in the part about NZ on Air's relationship with music. The fact that NZOA funds music videos and music production is all based around television and radio - bands have to be able to get videos of good enough quality to get played on TV and music of good enough quality to make it to radio playlists.
But now that so many of us are happy to watch low-res music videos on YouTube (and apparently US record companies are no longer happy to spend millions funding music video extravaganzas when videos like those made by OK Go are more popular), and that bands don't need commercial radio play in New Zealand to enjoy overseas success, is there still a role for NZOA to play in funding these types of artists?
If bands like the Checks and Shapeshifter and Fat Freddys Drop can find degrees of success overseas without having NZOA propping them up all the way along, why should other bands need it? Does it create a Feelersization; a welfare state for bands who wouldn't normally work hard enough or be good enough to survive without NZOA?
While radio and television still plays a huge part in music promotion in New Zealand, I like the levelling of the playing field that the internet is starting to create.
The music I've bought in the last couple of years or so is rarely a result of radio or television. It's more likely to be some web-based, whether a band's MySpace, a video on YouTube, an mp3 blog, a regular blog, or something unexpected (like the Klaxons song I heard played in one episode of the last series of UK Big Brother, that I was watching on YouTube).
I reckon there is still room for NZOA (or the government) to support music in varying ways, but the old system of music video and recording grants seems to be heading into obsolescence.
Merci beaucoup.
-
Does it create a Feelersization; a welfare state for bands who wouldn't normally work hard enough or be good enough to survive without NZOA?
That's quite a nice way of putting it. And thanks for reading the whole thing.
I can't say what will happen to the ideas in the paper, but I think NZOA deserves credit for commissioning a discussion document it knew would be critical. My impression is that there will be some change on the music front.
But now that so many of us are happy to watch low-res music videos on YouTube ...
And it's worth reiterating that it was a major label boss who told me that he'd rather use his NZOA funding grant to make a bunch of low-res clips for every track on an album, rather than one clip for TV.
-
And it's worth reiterating that it was a major label boss who told me that he'd rather use his NZOA funding grant to make a bunch of low-res clips for every track on an album, rather than one clip for TV.
That's assuming incorrectly that the 'quality' of a video comes from the expense of the camera only, which it doesn't.
Broadcast quality is easily attainable from domestic 3ccd cameras, or even a 1ccd camera with good lighting. Image quality really isn't the difficult or expensive part anymore. its the idea, staging and editing that are the deciding factors in a good video, and that isn't any cheaper whether the finished product is rendered to full broadcast quality or you tube video.
You can easily make a cheap video if you have a good idea, and a crew of skilled and hungry video tech people willing to give their time for free, but getting those people to work for free for the second video, is a little harder, and by the 4th, 5th, 6th video they'll be asking themselves what's in it for them.
You tube does nothing for the industry in terms of costs of producing a video, they remain the same, it does however free up the delivery medium, and means you're no longer relying on a few broadcast hours to squeeze your master piece into.
-
Does it create a Feelersization; a welfare state for bands who wouldn't normally work hard enough or be good enough to survive without NZOA?
Is it wrong of me to pine for a system that provides grants to non-commercially viable acts -- but who are somehow seen to be worth something artistically (?) -- to help them do things that are only normally available to commercially successful acts -- tour, record, release.
Especially now we have technology which can allow bands from NZ to much more easily gain huge acclaim globally while being virtually unknown at home. And recognising that "huge acclaim" doesn't usually translate into anything like money to pay for recording, releasing, touring.
i.e. wasn't it like this in the good old days?
(Disclaimer: I'm thinking of my own band(s) and those of my friends, a lot, here.)
-
Is it wrong of me to pine for a system that provides grants to non-commercially viable acts -- but who are somehow seen to be worth something artistically (?) -- to help them do things that are only normally available to commercially successful acts -- tour, record, release.
apparently it is wrong of you, but technically that is what the system is set up to fund, only it has been hijacked and misdirected.
if you read the various NZ on Air Mission statements it says its objectives areto fund things of cultural value (read artistic with that),
"NZ On Air's job is to promote and foster the development of New Zealand's culture on the airwaves"
to fund that which would not get funded,
"We aim to fund programmes and broadcasts, not otherwise provided in a commercial market"Those 2 objectives alone seem to bare no resemblance to the activities of the current system.
-
Is it wrong of me to pine for a system that provides grants to non-commercially viable acts -- but who are somehow seen to be worth something artistically (?) -- to help them do things that are only normally available to commercially successful acts -- tour, record, release.
It's called CreativeNZ. They provide ~$7million for project funding, although this is across all visual and performing arts. There are also a few other funds for more specific purposes.
Compare that to NZOA which distributes ~$5M for music promotion (another $100M goes to TV and radio programs).
-
It's called CreativeNZ. They provide ~$7million for project funding, although this is across all visual and performing arts. There are also a few other funds for more specific purposes.
In a way, the problem with music hasn't changed: it fits neither the creative or the industry boxes.
Creative NZ grants are essentially for artistic projects, and at various times they've bankrolled some very talented musical artists (Shayne Carter) and some fine records (Robert Scott's The Creeping Unknown). But they don't really suit music industry development. And neither does the Trade & Enterprise model.
The NZ On Air broadcast funding model worked really well for a long while, and still does in some cases, but the nature of broadcasting and of music discovery is changing. And a system in which commercial radio calls the shots doesn't fit the changed environment.
-
Creative NZ grants are essentially for artistic projects... But they don't really suit music industry development.
Absolutely, there are a hella lotta boxes you have to tick for CreativeNZ funding. But there's this subset of quite vocal musicians that complain that NZOA marginalises them because their music is artistic rather than commercial, but they hardly ever name-check CreativeNZ as a potential alternative - even to say they applied but were rejected. I'm curious to know how many musicians have applied, how many don't really know they can apply, and how many haven't bothered because they assume it's not worth the effort. I've just been trawling through their archives of funding decisions, and I was pleasantly surprised.
The NZ On Air broadcast funding model worked really well for a long while, ... And a system in which commercial radio calls the shots doesn't fit the changed environment.
I wholeheartedly agree with that statement. Obviously they're thinking hard about their methods and scope, which is good, but as much as I think they've done a better job than they get credit for, I do think it's past time they re-evaluated their actual mission.
-
When I served on one of Creative NZ's funding committees some years back, applications in that category outnumbered available funding by about 12:1. Probably much the same throughout its categories.
-
When I served on one of Creative NZ's funding committees some years back, applications in that category outnumbered available funding by about 12:1. Probably much the same throughout its categories.
Thanks for that. NZOA music video grants are 1 in 4 (170 grants a year, 600+ applicants), although their New Recording grants are about 1 in 40.
Also duly noted is that the general trend in CreativeNZ funding is about $5000 per artist for cost of recording / writing songs for an album - same amount that NZOA supplies for a single video.
..not really making a point, just interested in the figures.
-
they hardly ever name-check CreativeNZ as a potential alternative - even to say they applied but were rejected.
I suspect that some of the dudes in this position would like to think that even though NZOA has rejected them for not being commercial enough, that their 10-minute feedback solo/excusion into sonic chaos does actually have commercial potential, it's just that the dumb-arses at NZOA can't recognise it.
-
I suspect that some of the dudes in this position would like to think that even though NZOA has rejected them for not being commercial enough, that their 10-minute feedback solo/excusion into sonic chaos does actually have commercial potential, it's just that the dumb-arses at NZOA can't recognise it.
dammit, I can't tell if you're joking or not :D
Oh well, NZ bands touring overseas is probably only going to be viable for another handful of years, anyway.
-
But there's this subset of quite vocal musicians that complain that NZOA marginalises them because their music is artistic rather than commercial,
its not that at all.
its offense at the hijacking and mismanagement of a very good concept with good intentions, and frankly the waste of good taxpayer money on some misguided tangent.
As Russell noted, there was a time when NZ on Air was looking very promising indeed, the indie hit disc, plenty of support going to the backbone of nz music (ie the nz labels etc), but that time was a long time ago.Its in black and white in their mission statement what they're supposed to be doing. (see links above)
I'm curious to know how many musicians have applied, how many don't really know they can apply, and how many haven't bothered because they assume it's not worth the effort. I've just been trawling through their archives of funding decisions, and I was pleasantly surprised.
Haven't tried for a while now after a few years of participating in what is lets face it a lottery of a funding system.
The application process is excessive and gives little or no indication to the applicant if they're close or pissing in the wind.The smaller localised grant system of creative communities is a much better prospect although the amounts of money they get to distribute don't help much, but at least its local, tries to interface with the community it serves and does filter funding to artists on a wider basis.
-
I suspect that some of the dudes in this position would like to think that even though NZOA has rejected them for not being commercial enough, that their 10-minute feedback solo/excusion into sonic chaos does actually have commercial potential, it's just that the dumb-arses at NZOA can't recognise it.
amusingly enough some of our most respected and biggest selling overseas artists (and granted we don't have many) have been just such feedback merchants, Dead C, Roy Montgomery etc.
it just makes the whole picture that much more complicated, doesn't it. -
I do think it's past time they re-evaluated their actual mission.
or got back to it.
-
dammit, I can't tell if you're joking or not :D
Semi-joking... I think.
Along with Heather, I remember all the discussions on NZmusic.com like, "Waaa! Why did X get funding but my hard-working rock unit didn't!" And the subsequent explanation about NZOA's requirements for a song to have commercial potential.
But as Robbery noted, bands that make music that is traditionally unpopular and non-commercial in New Zealand can find an audience overseas.
The internet is going to see more of this happen, and NZOA (or the government) needs to ensure their music-funding strategy reflects the current and future world of music.
-
On the subject of YouTube and music videos, The Onion's AV Club has a list of Cop Rock: 21 (Mostly Negative) Songs About Law Enforcement. Most of the songs have an embedded YouTube clip of the song, but because few had a music video made, the YouTube clips tend to be fan-made, and either photo montages or some video footage set to the song. And that's good enough if you just want to hear the song.
-
I realise those who recycle the Dihydrogen monoxide prank to fool politicians think they're awfully clever, in a "we put Glad Wrap over the toilet bowl" kind of way. But no thanks.
While the pollies caught by recycled student "humour" could indeed have avoided falling into the trap with a quick Google search, politicians are hardly a random sample of the population - they're generally indolent and expect a researcher to tell them what to think. I wouldn't be surprised if some bored party researcher knew all about the DiHyMo myth and thought "bugger it, let her stew".
It's easy to assume that we internet-savvy types are also a representative sample. We're not. I remember that when One was trumpeting "More people get their news from us than any other source" in fact it was the "bulletins" on TV2, lasting all of 2 minutes and read by former cheerleaders rather than journos which some survey or other demonstrated had become the primary source for the bulk of the population.
While the readers of Public Address are more than capable of weeding the wheat from the chaff on sites like Wikipedia, many are not. And to those who'd defend Wikipedia's accuracy I'd respond yes, I agree the bulk of information is okay. But to cite but one example - go read the biography of any living pollie. It's probably been initiated by, and is certainly regularly tweaked and tended by, his or her spin doctors and / or the pollie themselves. Some people might come along and insert the unvarnished truth, but don't have the time to keep coming back and repeating it.
Or try talking to any GP who's now confronted by patients carrying armloads of internet-sourced documents which "prove" that wearing a tinfoil hat cures baldness or that the stomach upset they've had for a few days is in fact som obscure Amazonian plague.
Or go on being glib. See if I care.
-
3410,
While the pollies caught by recycled student "humour" could indeed have avoided falling into the trap with a quick Google search...
My point is that if you'd tried a quick Google search on the question of Wikipedia's accuracy you might not be talking about "Wikipedia articles [being] probably, on average, about as accurate as the average Fox News broadcast" a year after that assumption was been widely debunked.
You "suggest that in NZ it goes, from most beliveable to least, print, radio, TV, internet...". You seem to perceive "the internet" as some kind of monolithic beast. Each of these media is merely a vehicle for transmitting material. Whilst the internet may contain a greater percentage of rubbish than the other media you mention - and that's debatable - it makes no sense at all to lumber each source on it with responsibility for that. Credibility - or lack of it - resides with the individual provider, not with the method of dispersal. It's like with people; you don't just say that "People aren't very credible" because many of them spout uninformed nonsense; you grow trust over time with individuals who have built a record of deserving it.
I have a hard time believing that you're "internet-savvy" if you don't understand that.
-
I've been trying really hard to read this tomb of a paper but fuck'd if I can get through it. I skipped to the end to see if "darth vader was lukes father" but the whole paper raised a few question for me.
We're talking about how NZ on Air should go forward with its funding. New media considerations and all that.
Did you consult media makers, the people who make successful music videos and ask them how their costs have changed with the new media channels, ie does the fact that it played on you tube or myspace affect the cost of professionally producing these things?
I'm also interested in whether you and dubber got commissioned to write this paper or did you do it out of community spirit.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.