NZ on air funding
Could be nz music forum topic, but whatever, its kind of general opinion.
I've not applied for video funding but have seen the list of artist receiving money ($5000) to go towards there music video for the selected song. Does NZ on air receive a royalty when these videos are played? reason I ask is because of the list of 25 or so artists, almost all of them were quite well known, if not very well known. I understand the critera is to support songs with commerica potential, but if there is no financial gain or subsidy for the success of the funded videos, then wouldn't it be better to support more unknown artists with potential to break through?
I'm aware that there is not a lot of money in music for most NZ artists, even well known ones, but in my opinion such funding should be for trying to bring through new artists. It almost seems a little redundant to fund artists who are already known and will have there videos go ahead and go to air regardless of the funding (assumption). It seems to me they're funding projects that would go ahead regardless of funding and would be better to support lesser known artists or alternatively fund our top artists to push them internationall, maybe fund an international tour (while expensive could be done more cost effectively than many would imagine, just look at touring hardcore bands).
Anyway, thats my 2 cents... thoughts?
Comments
Single most intelligent NZOA opening post by a newbie ever. (applause)
Started doing a long post, but got kinda tired, sorry! The topic's been thrashed many times on the forums ever since nzmusic.com started. Here's my short version:
Firstly, take as read that NZOA's mandate is to have more kiwi music on commercial channels - their policy could be likened to what I've heard referred to as "the politics of presence" - the idea that if there are more kiwis on tv & radio, that's a good thing, and it will lead to...more kiwis on tv & radio. Officially they have absolutely no interest in content, genre, worthiness or financial state of the band, anything like that, just that kiwis get to watch and listen to more kiwis (although I'm pretty sure the staff have quite specific ideas about what they'd personally like to see more of). That's why it's ultimately up to commercial stations to have the final decision about who'll get funding - there's no point funding a band/song/album if noone's interested in playing it for lack of an audience.
With that in mind, the reason the already-well-known acts you mentioned are a success now is in no small part because of NZOA's work since their conception. And because of the increasing interest in kiwi music overall, as well as changes in industry climate, advent of the web & cheap creation/distribution methods, and so on, there has been a shift toward self-starters as well (and I suspect also a small part due to the aforementioned personal tastes of the staff) - indie bands & small labels get a much bigger chunk of the pie than they used to.
HOWEVER, since NZOA could now be viewed as a qualified success, and many bands & labels are likely to be viable without the extra funding, I think the more progressive nzmusic.com opinions have leant toward the same view as you - it'd be great if their mandate could be changed to promote more unknowns. Not sure how that'd work though.
BTW, NZOA don't receive any royalties on the $5000 video grants, but the larger album & phase IV grants are supposed to be paid back out of any profits.
and that's all I have time for right now, let the flaming begin!!!
I just reread my post, & realised it's the circuitous route to agreeing with you. I guess my point is that it's an issue that's more up to government to change rather than NZOA themselves. The scope of their job is quite specific.
Thanks for the response, I guess ones views are probably most directly related to there own situation hence why I can not have an unbiased view. I myself am in a band that has recently done a little recording (of good quality - in my opinion) and thoughts of seeking video funding in the next round were somewhat dampened after seeing the big name artists. I realise that there is new artists funding too, but our recordings are 'radio quality' (whether they're radio friendly would be to the ear of the listener)... anyway I digress, point being I have a bias view on who should get funding.
On the principal of "politics of presence" as you referred it, I can understand why NZOA would support already established artists as an easier way to maintain kiwis on air/tv rather than risking artists who may break through and disappear just as fast.
Sorry to disappoint (and as much as I'd like to take the accolade) I'm actually a former regular from a few years back, just have a new profile. Funnily enough though even though I used to use the forums a fair bit I don't think I ever got involved in this particular debate :)
Well, you shouldn't let the big names put you off applying. From what I understand of the initial shortlisting process, the music is judged purely on its own merits - all the tracks are just played back-to-back without any additional identification. Obviously some bands are pretty easy to recognise, but this kinda implies it's good practice for an unknown radio-friendly band to apply regularly. Even if you're unsuccessful the first time or four, you increase your chances of getting funding out of familiarity. Frustrating as hell, but good practice.
& regardless of being old-school, it's just very nice to read a sensible topic-starter on what's regularly an inflammatory issue. what's your old username? Do I know you?
And yeah, the thing that's wrong with NZ Funding On Air is that there is NZ Funding On Air !!! I'm sorry to say this to you dude but yeah instead focusing on quanity of New Zealand music, movies, shows etc. we should instead be more fully serious about the quality !!! The quality guys is what is gonna sell New Zealand to world ! There are alot of ways to do this, the simplest way they can do this, cool, is for them to put in some sort policy where in case of NZ Music, they only match the amount of money a record label would want to spend on particular group or person. The record label out there only wants to spend a thousand on someone video, then why should government spend anymore than that on the guy ? This is how NZ Funding On Air is policy open to abuse as why should we, government, spend any more money on someone that the record label doesn't want to ? Dude we're getting used !!! That way leaving it totally to the corporate music body to decide on who worth it and who's not, brings back some sort quality control to NZ Music that I feel is sadly lacking in alot places. Dude, there are too way many piss shit loser bands out there that are bringing us all down ...
I was formerly chronickiwi :)
(While subjective) I'd suggest by the absolute rubbsh popular music we hear on air and see on tv music videos from international artists, quality has nothing to do with sellability to the world. Quality of music is also not defined by an artist being on a record label (or label of significance) hense why they seek additional funding. As for music labels stumping up cash for cash, they're a business designed to make money, they sign and invest in artists themselves to make money for themselves and adopt risk so why should the government be helping fund there business? But again I guess that's my bias on how funding should be used... dude.
// I was formerly chronickiwi :)
OH, that explains everything. I've always been a fan. ;)
Yes, I think our views have often aligned in the past :)