why does nzonair give more than one grant per artist?

Submitted by christianity on Mon, 2007-06-11 03:15

there is a reason why they're not distributed dispassionately, just can't remember offhand, hopefully someone could remind me

Comments

Submitted by foal30 on Tue, 2007-06-12 18:36.

well, like NZMusic.com only has four people who post here, only the same 4 bands ever apply to NZonAir.

Submitted by adriancarl on Wed, 2007-06-13 11:20.

it's actually 5 but who's splitting hairs

Submitted by christianity on Tue, 2007-06-26 07:16.

but hte question

why does nzonair give more than one grant per artist?

Submitted by NZM on Tue, 2007-06-26 13:04.

I guess because there is an underlying philosophy to support commercial success (or evidenced potential of). Backing commercial "winners" not artists. A previously granted band has, in theory, more of a track record of commercial success.

Thats probably too simplistic, but thats how it comes out to me. Personally I think its all a minor waste of money.

Submitted by christianity on Tue, 2007-06-26 19:38.

there are many videos that got like 2 plays and then were never seen again
before the same artists got their next grant to make another never seen again vid -
to give that theory any creedence.

that's pretty much the attitude of the world today
minor waste of money
minor waste or resources
minor waste of life

while 5 million kids die per year in africa
i don't see there is such a thing as a minor waste

to me it's nothing more than an excuse to pay brendon smyth a salary
again
another (sic) minor waste of money
imagine being that guy
and knowing that your whole life's work is
a minor waste of money
there is a library in levin
which has both cost this country less
and contributed more
if we want to get value for money out of that cream skimmer (and i'm not talking the cream processed from cow's udders)
we could put him down, carve him out, and turn him into a library
featuring nzonair stuff
see how many of those vids and tv shows
never get lent out

how far would that money have gone to getting this site up and running at 10 times the speed nzm?

in 100 years
going through the archives
what's the historical value of the favouritism? the backslapping? the handouts? the seminars?
how well does a cross section of artists represent the actual musical landscape as it exists at a bar near you?

there have been less than 10 acts that could even pretend to wear the crown of commercial success since this dance began

Submitted by NZM on Wed, 2007-06-27 12:33.

Brendon Smyth is an excellent person. I don't think there is any reason to attack him personally. It also undermines your point.

Submitted by christianity on Wed, 2007-06-27 17:52.

i didn't attack him personally. i attacked him professionally
i have no pretence to know anything about him,
except (i use this word very loosely) 'professional' correspondence i've read between him and the head of she'll be right records.
it's easy to let your personal bias interfere with your judgement in this case NZM
but to be clear
i know nothing about the man
and would obviously replace his name with another when he is replaced
he has made a career choice
that regardless of his personal attributes
puts him in a position to directly interfere with the cultural representation of a nation.
this in my opinion is a heavy responsibility to take on the shoulders
and with that responsibility comes the acceptance that he may be the recipient of certain criticisms
see above

personal criticism would follow lines such as "brendon smyth has an overly big nose" or "brendon smyth is a bottomhole"
i'm not going there
i'm Attacking the job he has and is doing
citing the large gulf between the new zealand music as represented in bars, parties and the internet
and that which this organization pushes as fair representation of 'the scene'

you use the word 'commercial' without a hint of the meaning of the word
for every 10 artists you cite who had 'commercial' success off of this scheme
i'll list you 20 who made no inroads and still received a second grant on the back of their commercial failure
and the resulting statistics
will imply NZM
that you are talking bollocks
like some propagandad up zombie
just cos he's an excellent dude to you
doesn't mean he's excellent to the country, the culture, the aspiring acts, the creativity, the budget, the tax payer,
many excellent people don't do shit for the world
and in this way
some excellent people oversee atrocities

you are implying i have a point regarding the work brendon smyth does.
but you fail to address it

Submitted by foal30 on Wed, 2007-06-27 18:25.

fail to address.
Smyth is a suit
in a job whose charter he may not have written

until this business plan is changed/adapted then using his name is at the least a distraction.
On a list of goons getting paid $ to act foolishly on our behalf I can't see him being in the top 500

which is pretty much the same place the people the Org funds find themselves too.
I think you need more than one video to be a Pop Star.
it oozses longevity
heaven knows a second single or EP does create this effect these days.

which suggests funding disposable music for a disposable buyer may be very commercial savvy.
or at least appropriate to the times
which I know is NZOA charter.

Submitted by foal30 on Wed, 2007-06-27 18:27.

flag as offensive?

Submitted by NZM on Wed, 2007-06-27 19:29.

I merely meant that choosing to attack some person directly, either personally or "professionally", is naive.

I don't disagree that much with what you have to say about NZonAir (and I stated my personal belief that its not my cup of tea) but if you choose to turn my comments into a reason to also alienate me then I think your basically a political child. Good luck with your agenda.

Submitted by christianity on Wed, 2007-06-27 20:29.

i choose to direct my argument towards brendon smythe
because he is in a position to influence and affect change in the system which he represents.
i'm not the first, nor will i be the last.
and more than that,
it's playing the man not the ball
i like to do a bit of both
happens everywhere
and it's kind of fun to attack people who live off others hard work

i'm not trying to alienate you NZM, i have no agenda. that is your own paranoia.
i like you, you replied, and you stuck up for brendon
that's cool
1. we've established he's a good guy
2. we've established you know him personally and also have influence in such things
you should try for a moment to separate your experience of the man, who i'm sure is a nice guy, with the name as used in a 'political' sense. he's not a real person for me. for me, he is name who has choosen a career misrepresenting new zealand culture in the media. that's as deep as it goes for me. and as a name in the limelight
i think he should be thick skinned enough to deal with a little bit of bovine imagery
as we all should be
otherwise the whole concept of freedom of speech
falls flat quick
i stress
it's not personal on any level
it's not even an attack
it's a criticism
taking it is a skill

with their implementation just this week of new laws censuring how public figures can be portrayed in the media
new zealand has most certainly reached political adulthood.

and you are NZM,
the ideal poster child,
for this neomuldoonesqe 'don't poke fun at political figures NZM' retrograde, with that last post.

Submitted by NZM on Wed, 2007-06-27 21:10.

Oh come on.... "neomuldoonesqe"? And I'm paranoid here? Wahahahaha

If you're really not trying to alienate me, then re-learn how to communicate. Apparently I speak "bollocks" like a propaganda'd up "zombie". Them's great words to win friends with.

I'm pretty sure even you can accept that it starts to smell a whole lot like an agenda when good ole christianity lays the NZonAir-debate-only-to-turn-on-Brendon forum trap.

Admittedly I regret posting a vaguely sympathetic response in the first place. Admittedly I prefer less ugly approaches, such as accepting the situation for what it is and then influencing some change (even here), instead of lighting the dog poo bag and leaving on the doorstep.

Good luck with your motif. I like you too, when you're not throwing poos.

Submitted by christianity on Mon, 2007-07-23 21:29.

i stand corrected

just thought he might reply
in the month interim before anyone posted.
thought he might be able represent himself and his work
6000 APRA members in new zealand
it's not like he's prime minister of india with a billion fields to call

but fair dos he didn't
once you get a cushy job like that on the taxpayer
not realy worth taking any shit from anyone

Submitted by christianity on Wed, 2007-06-27 20:31.

foal

this is a music site,
in terms of suits interfering in the nz music industry he'd make the top 10
he hopefully read the charter before he took the bull by the horns

the charters says: "give repeat funding to bands whose video gets played twice and archived in the rubbish bin out back"
i don't think so
at least in the pre digital days they could copy over the tape
but i think that repeat funding for bands that failed hands down with the first grant would go against the charter
merely an assumption, but what kind of charter is this?

being a pop star is not relevant foal ,
this for me is about giving stuff as fairer shot as the stuff by groups who have managers who are able to use the old boys network to channel government funds, so these managers can get their ten percent.

it's about looking at the current level of commercial success (and i don't mean breaking even)
and weighing up if it's significantly better than if they just took random punts
it's about representing rather than artifically creating and manipulating a culture
it's about fairness and fair representation
it's about about government enforced taste manufacturing
it's about taking risks cos the safe bets aren't playing
it's about giving new zealanders the chance to watch a good video
and not pissing money away on acts that make rubbish videos
its about transparency of decision in a democratic environment
it's about the leader of the decision making group being held accountable for the wet turds he consistantly backs
it's about being open to the possibility that just because something has history, doesn't mean it's good, right or of value.
it's about the right to expose, ridicule, criticize, and blame public figures in a country that is taking serious measures against these democratic freedoms
and foal
it's about your band's right
to get a grant
ahead of stellar or whatever
because they did nothing better than break even with their opportunities, the many, they wasted and drank and snorted.
when you are yet to receive your chance.

longevity is not a key word
commercial success is
and there's not enough commercial success to warrant nzonair, brendon smyth or any of the other gleaners an income comparable to that of even a street cleaner
it's a whitewash with the emphasis on the peckerwood, inbred, urban imperialist whiteism
in an agricultural nation no less

if we're gonna talk about oozing
75% of the nzonair video grants
-the ones that are commercial failures
don't even hint at the mitest whiff of savv

if brendon smyth was a stockbroker he'd be in jail for insider trading
if he were an accountant, he'd have difficult questions to answer
if he were a PR, A&R or HR his company would be bankrupted 100 times over
there's no element of savv in working to find products of commercial potential and coming up with a 10% hit ratio
that's not savv
that's complete and comprehensive failure
on every level
by him
by the team he works with
and by the charter they work to
the country was too poor and under populated for the charter to work in the first place

if new zealanders were exposed to more overseas creations, instead of enforcing a mandatory look at us quota
they'd spend less time admiring their collective low qual navel.
and get a better idea
who the competition is and whtat they're up against
in the very commercial world
of commercial commercialism

your idea
funding disposable music for a disposable buyer
is sound
but where is the buyer for (take your pick from the list of grants recipients whose video you never saw)
the buyer is sitting at home watching home made vids on the internet
TV died

if the world is a rugby game
new zealand on air and it's influence, is a prop, stuck in the dressing room admiring her reflection in the mirror
missing the game
she doesn't look too fantastic, but when she is alone with that mirror, fuck sake she's brad pitt.
the rest of the team is on the park playing, play by play by play.
the prop is fat and complacent

please eat and drink the taxes of people who earn less than you brendon
do nothing to adjust the charter to the internet age
to rise of digital, the net,
to the relative inflation and deflation of the currency and the technology required to do the things nzonair funds.
and just keep patting yourselves on the back new zealand on air
justify your lifestyle
and never look back over your failure to success ratio
for far be it from me to suggest that anything needs changing.

Submitted by foal30 on Wed, 2007-06-27 22:30.

you don't go to jail for insider trading
You get knighted and seats at the yachting.
rich man's sport parades as national game

is NZOA failing to deal with rise of digital?
I'm simply unqualified to say
It takes me a very long time just to post here.
I am also unconvinced that NZOA is backslapping or running many justifications. The main "proof" they tend to offer in my limited experience is claims regarding %quota re:radio content. Whilst only a fool would say the now the numbers I would suggest that the total "visibility" on "mainstream" NZ Radio is higher than any time I can remember. Obviously this is not going anywhere in your comments about the Digital age.

Low quality normally means music we don't like. But we don't like most music...hence I have no beef with the shit music on the radio being shit NZ Music. better them than say, Nickelback, Nirvana or Nelly.

I was being a smart arse about longevity. The disposable bit was more my intent and most Industry reports indicate people are listening to one song for 6 weeks. This is totally foreign to me...I remember saving and budgeting for my purchases from Galaxy weeks and months in advance and the "totality" of the purchase was almost ritualistic. Even the artwork and the changing of the side of vinyl was part of the admission fee. I also cannot listen to MP3's , I realize I can be a Jazzfag but it's one of the mystery's of modern life to me how people do this.

which brings (or could if anyone cared) leveling of hypocrisy as I make music available for purchase on Amplifier.

disposable is video too... um, I have recently started watching a TV Channel called Alt TV. so for me this is a new experience watching music videos. I like talking to my kids about the videos and music performance. So for my Family at least, Video is very much alive. For economic carry, I also purchase off this format... I may hear something through the promotional video that I then buy. Modest Mouse, Age Pryor, Gramsci John Mayer would all be examples of this. So while I could be a tiny minority for sure, there clearly is still punters who format their Music buying program in this way.
I concede it is possibly generational.

Pop Star is totally relevant. It is this that drives the whole thing. Make no mistake, I agree with you about this being an appalling state of affairs, but we are in Commerce not Art. Government expects return, if it's eyecandy video with young boys that fits the bill... a concept of Cultural Identity is always secondary to $...we do not live in Cuba.anyone remember Parallel importing crisis and US sanctions? It was the end of the world the Warehouse... I think I still have Mike Chunn's NZ Herald piece here somewhere...

It is a fanciful notion at best to expect a Government faculty to operate outside its requirements to be sub servant to the almighty Capitalist market. We cannot ask or demand seperation of one division that we may feel particularly impassioned about without clearly identifying the wholesale changes great rafts of society's strata will need to do as well. Sadly such desire is tiny, ghettoized, and often wildly off the mark in its target setting. Can you spell Myspace?

as for the Musical Collective and Artists I work with/for we deserve NOTHING. If we were even half serious in "promotions" or "visibility" or "market share" I would have been sacked years ago. It as much a skill as looking young and horny and making "business relationships" as it is blowing be-bop changes or singing about the Labour Market. We make decisions that do not allow us certain economic "opportunities" ...it's madness to cry about this.Separation of Music and Music Business again.
although I did get wound up with R.I.U. again. oops. I think its the pain of remembering what they once were... and the association that brings of what I once was.

"we'll go dancing in the dark, walking through the park and reminiscing"

I think I am out of puff and I have not touched on Democratic freedoms.
I'll see how I feel on Saturday.

Submitted by christianity on Thu, 2007-06-28 07:59.

i completely agree foal
we deserve nothing.

i'd like to address a couple of elements:

namely this section:

"Pop Star is totally relevant. It is this that drives the whole thing. Make no mistake, I agree with you about this being an appalling state of affairs, but we are in Commerce not Art. Government expects return, if it's eyecandy video with young boys that fits the bill... a concept of Cultural Identity is always secondary to $...we do not live in Cuba.anyone remember Parallel importing crisis and US sanctions? It was the end of the world the Warehouse... I think I still have Mike Chunn's NZ Herald piece here somewhere..."

you mention returns
i know these returns are nzs well kept secret

people making a couple of bucks here and there?
indies springing up aand keeling over
it's a high casualty sport
how does the nz music industry measure up against the likes of say
the cheese industry?
the butter industry?
the cream industry?

comparable.
how are or were farmers subsidised?
by a panel of exporters?

the assumption that the $250 per annum (decreasing at 23.555555%) APRA cheque for which each member of 'eight' qualifies (until 2015, when it's worth less than the postage, and the money gets thrown in the slush fund), is a return-
is frankly, for me, third world.

taste is a fickle thing. you talk of being a jazzfag foal 30. jazz was born out of slippery liquor soaked keys and bad motherfuckers dragging our souls from one form of cancer to another can't sir. and many of the early jazz
that which we will never know, nor hear, nor dream about.
is lost.
as lost as jesus's hangover

because it wasn't recorded
o the fuck
we lost da vinci
just like that
exactly in that way
swathes of humanity
in the age of technology
have been lost
copied over
destroyed
deleted
or never captured at all.

and for us at poo throwers international it comes down to this
i'm no charter reader.
but i watch the show
"putting more of new zealand on air"
and i saw the last video that band made and it was also crap
that's 10,000 hearty bowls of rice.

putting something on air, when the people who are putting it on air now(keyword), are the people who are choosing it....
is an admirable idea
the success warrents due respect to the marksmanship of the plan.

but then why is this panel, this board of directors,
-who are, i'm assured, programmers on the stations that play the video's and songs and shows they've chosen to fund,
-giving 5000 new zealand dollars to some video they end up playing thrice.
3 times.

5000 dollars
9 minutes of domestic airplay.
hours of hardwork and planning

and then

why
do they give the same band another grant again?
and again?

is it a prank?
-"hoho, these guys again"
-" yeah give them the grant, and play the poor sons of bitches (rolls dice) 3 times..ha!"
-"mu ha he!"
-"for real"
the guys in the band are just like
awesome! wtf?, AWESOME! WFIWT?
that's fucking emotional spamming.

but seems to me those guys in the board have good intentions, and real short memories.

"The Mobile Unit Archive is a collection of recordings made between 1946 and 1948 by the New Zealand Broadcasting Service.
The speakers recorded by the Mobile Unit were born between 1850 and the early 1900s ... all first generation New Zealand-born anglophones (English speakers). They were also a real cross-section of “ordinary” New Zealanders

is putting new zealand on air as important as keeping new zealand on air?
is taste not something fluctuated by the whims of time?
is the international commercial failure currently being experienced with regards to any significant economic growth in the newwave new zealand music industry, caused by poor quality?
a symptom of poor musicianship? poor planning? poor video making? poor promotion? poor management? poor songs?
or is it
simply that
the world was not ready?

have there ever been any instances of the world not being ready in the history of human civilization.
not sure.

or is it that the best shit, thats gonna have the most unit sales of any nz act ever, is playing at a bar near you and has been for the last five years, and the board of directors just didn't get it.

what i'm saying is like,
if that is the case
why the fuck are they getting 3 play charlie who spends his shit, taking backhanders to play greenday, to choose the nz on air shit.

he's not gonna get backhanders from the best new zealand band
not as much as mccartney's gonna pay to be sure.
so it's in his or her interest
to pick shit
that's gonna be moderately to not very good
so he has more time to sell off to the ilk
(across the boardroom)
"hell yeah! another shihad video"
"another shihad?"
"another shihad!"
"but beaurepaires?"
"fuck beaurepairs! another toogood"
"but the kids?"
"fuck the kids, we'll put it on low rotate for a month and noone'll notice"

disposable?
commercial?

the nz on air video collection
volume 2
95-2005
hot seller?
mainstay in any reputable collection?
perhaps

accurate reflection of the age?
not at all

the distance from the jazz halls of new orleans to the drooping ears of misplaced old widows in temuka was
a beautiful thing
intimate real recordings
but so much was lost
like your virginity.

and maybe at the time
you or i or your grandma was on the board of directors that gave out the funding to capture the goods
and we all agreed that robert johnson was rubbish
so we didn't record that
we just putting our money on bartok

that would be a fucking tragedy.

i think of earlier patrons of the arts
the queens and kings
the pope:

"paint me scenes from the bible son, on the ceiling please. make the men toned and muscular. as real as you can young man, vey good"

and mic angelo is at home everynight sketching this wicked tag, building cow cunt paint spray bladders
prepping his shit
then one night,
he ducks out and spends the whole night, dusk till dawn, spraying this thing on to the west wall of the sistine chapel.
he wakes up
heads down to work
he knows the pope'll be coming
and he'll be blown away by this, the baddest shit eva.
and he gets there
and the pope is pissed
the baddest shit ever has been whitewashed over
and the pope's standing there like the freaking dictator yelling at michael angelo to paint leaves over that man's dick.

would it have made any difference?
the dick or the leaf?
what the fuck is the leader of the catholic church doing telling michalfuckingangelo how to paint?
this guidance,
this leaf over dickism
is selective
not natural selection
casting the net a little wider
is worth trying as much as any other charter

my agenda is this

more country music representation - nzonair please.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=QoOEEQPiUxE

Submitted by Scott on Thu, 2007-06-28 09:44.

Holy shite theres some long posts on here!!!

Aside from all the issues that have been brought up with NZonAir it has generated a question for me - someone commented about the charters appropiatness in the age of the internet and that linked into something which I had been reading recently.

------------------------------

Taken From : http://newmusicstrategies.com/download/NMS.pdf (well worth a read)

[Quote Begins]

The economics of the internet are different to the economics of the offline world. The ways in which it’s different are still being shaken out, but the most well-established principle is that of The Long Tail.

Originally an article by Wired Magazine editor Chris Anderson, and then a blog and a very successful book, The Long Tail is actually a very simple concept. It’s a model for describing an important characteristic of the online environment.

The top left of the graph represents a very small number of popular items that have a very high number of sales. These are the hits. The tail towards the bottom right represents the vast number of items that sell in smaller quantities.

The main point of Anderson’s article is that the internet enables the large number of non-hits to expand to the extent that they economically outweigh the hits. And, he argues, this is exactly what’s happened.

In a sense, it’s all about physical space. In the offline environment, there’s only a certain amount of shelf space. Online, storage is not a problem. In traditional record shops and bookstores, only the most popular items can be offered. Online, far more things can be made available, and that raises some issues.

The first issue that arises from this is that the more things you make available, the more people will explore the non-hits. The repercussion of this is that the sales of the most popular items suffer. If 100 things are available, those 100 things will enjoy sales success. If a million things are available for sale, the 100 most popular things will still enjoy sales success, but a greater proportion of people will explore the tail instead of consuming the hits.

The second issue is that the more things you make available, the more things people will consume overall. Amazon.com sells more books than any other bookstore because it sells a greater range of books than any other bookstore.

The third, and perhaps most important aspect, is that the Long Tail provides not only greater potential for mass market retailers moving online by reducing the problem of shelf space, but also a route to market for a wide range of niche products that might not otherwise have been made available by more traditional means.

The book has had two subtitles (in the American and UK versions), each with different emphasis. The first is: ‘Why the Future of Business is Selling Less of More’ — that is, the trick is to make everything available, and sell a small quantity of a large number of items, rather than the other way around. The second subtitle is: ‘How Endless Choice Is Creating Unlimited Demand’ — a slightly more problematic assertion, but it does carry a message of hope to niche businesses.

The simple fact is that economics are transformed online. An online music retailer will never sell out of a record. They will never have to stop stocking an item in order to stock another. There is no reason for labels to delete catalogue and every reason to reissue everything.

And the more easily searchable you make it, the more you will benefit at the business end.

The real reason the major record labels are experiencing problems is not the issue of piracy or filesharing. It’s that they no longer have only to compete with other hits. Now they have to compete with a range of choice that is exponentially greater than anything they’ve ever come across. The age of the hit is over.

Because the simple, powerful fact is this: for the first time in history, the sum total of the economic value of the tail is now greater than the sum total of the economic value of the head. Amazon sells more books overall that are not in the top 100 bestseller list than those 100 combined. Probably more outside the top 1000 than in it.

Add all the sales of all the records that made it into the charts in the last year, and the economic value of everything that never made it close eclipses it.

This is something that requires more reading — because understanding these concepts could radically transform both how you approach what you do for a living, and how much money you could make doing it.

Search out the book – or at least read Anderson’s blog.

[Quote Ends]
-------------------------------------

Now once we take on board we can see that funding only those tracks which the industry identify as "hits" is a flawed concept with distribution via the internet - it seems clear that the NZ on Air funding hasn't kept up to speed with the changes in the music industry and is still concentrated on trying to develop individual artists as opposed to the entire industry.

I found the PDF I've linked to be quite an eye opener - maybe not so much for people here but for my next project I want to actually have some visability and it seems to lay out the basic steps to do so quite well.

The two bigs things that stood out for me were...
- The age of the hit is over.
- for the first time in history, the sum total of the economic value of the tail is now greater than the sum total of the economic value of the head

I'd be interested to hear peoples thoughts on the above - even if it's disagreement.

Submitted by adriancarl on Thu, 2007-06-28 14:15.

Hmmm
*strokes chin contemplatively*

Submitted by christianity on Thu, 2007-06-28 17:50.

obviously i agree

Submitted by christianity on Sun, 2009-06-14 14:54.

To put things very simply. If you have two students, and one is significantly better than the other, but you give all props and resources to the worse student;

1 the better student is going to start questioning their own judgement

2 they will give up

Putting the promotion of nationalism and political interference ahead of the nurturing of talent will promote nationalism and a stronger sense of political identity.

Within the competitive environment. Will introducing a greater number of lesser accolades enhance the race for the top prize?

perhaps.

depending on the assessment criteria.

If the criteria to win lesser accolades conflicts with the criteria to achieve the highest accolade, will the competition be enhanced?

If a government is willing to introduce policy to interfere with a cultural field regardless of the tastes of the majority at the time of introduction. Then what are the underlying motives?

Why do we want to see more of New Zealand on Air?

If New Zealand on air was established to overcome the cultural cringe, is the underlying psychological 'cringe' condition in anyway related to the inability of certain NZOA members to consistently select music featuring the New Zealand accent?

Should NZOA panelists be tested for the cringe and If they suffer from the cringe, should they be disbarred?