well i'll be damned, i'm new to the nz music scene..
cheers for the links bro

// NZ on Air, who really are you helping?

bands with commercial radio and tv airplay potential.

// who wants to hear the same ol same ol?

// the point was that a lot of bands WITH potential
// are missing out because NZ on air don't want to take any risks

it's not NZ On Air who don't want to take risks - it's the commercial radio programmers. I think that's the problem people have with NZ On Air - they get the blame for commercial radio's relative conservatism with regards to their playlists. It's not NZ On Air that chooses what gets played on air, it's the guys at More FM, ZM, Channel Z, The Rock and the like. If NZ On Air started funding more leftfield and non-commercial sounding acts, it'd obviously be great for those bands, but I doubt any of them would end up on commercial radio, which, essentially, would end up being a waste of money for NZ On Air.

The thing is, what NZ On Air has achieved over the last 10 years or so, is a gradual shift in what commercial radio programmers will consider listener-friendly. The likes of Rhombus, Blindspott, Salmonella Dub, Goodshirt, King Kapisi and Scribe wouldn't have had a look in on mainstream radio 10 years ago, but now they're everywhere. What NZ On Air have been doing, and will continue to do, as far as I can tell, is to fund a basic core of commercially 'safe' acts that will ensure NZ quotas stay at a relatively high level, and then throw some money at a few of the more indie/leftfield acts from time to time to get the commercial jocks at least aware of their existence (even if they end up not playing them). The commercial acts are essentially a 'wedge' into which the less mainstream acts can push on through with later, once the 'cringe' factor of the programmers has been softened. And remember, the programmers are trying to keep their listeners tuned in with popular and listenable tunes. If a NZ act is popular live, it does them no end of good when a programmer is deciding whether to play their track on the radio (and, I suppose, in whether or not NZ On Air funds them) -- even if a programmer doesn't necessarily like how a song sounds, there's no arguing with public when it comes to taste.

And, again, nothing's stopping bands WITH potential from just getting out there and doing it. If you can gig, do the occasional recording, send in your CDs to the radio stations, get your fan base to ring in and request the tracks, there's nothing stopping you achieving the same sort of local success that any NZ On Air sponsored mainstream act has achieved. NZ On Air isn't the arbiter of success in the NZ music scene.

// I am happy with any benefit it has for those of us who want
// to jam on the whole funding argument esp. if it's their first time here.

yeah, me too. one of my favourite topics, in fact. I just think it's easy enough to point the newbies at some of the older topics so they can do some background research before launching into it. you never know, they might find out something they didn't know, or it might give them an angle they hadn't thought out before.

//But definately nz on air ain't the last straw, getting out there, playing live, handing out cd's etc. self promotion is limitless!

That's such a good attitude. I think sometimes some people take NZ On Air for granted a bit (more the newer bands with more idealistic expectations, I wager) - then get annoyed when it doesn't deliver for them personally. Fair enough, but they can't afford to just stay mad at NZ On Air for funding and not them. It's tough work, but there are plenty of ways to make music without relying on government grants. I have a lot of respect for musicians that have achieved a degree of success without NZ On Air funding or, for that matter, backing from a major label.

That said, with some of the (many many) discussions on this topic recently I've been starting to rethink my views of NZ On Air - whether I still agree with their goals, or whether I'd like to see them trying to achieve something else...man, I'm so confused...

// whether I still agree with their goals, or whether I'd like
// to see them trying to achieve something else...man, I'm so confused...

ahaha. tell me about it. I keep thinking of alternative schemes that help out some of the indie/alt acts a bit more, but none of them jump out at me as being particularly brilliant. this for the day I take over NZ On Air, of course...

//major labels in NZ, aren't necessarily the bottomless pits of money that some people think they are.

Well thats not really that relevant when Bic Runga recieved $5000 for the videos to Get Some Sleep and Somthing Good and those videos cost something like $120 000 and $70 000 respectively. She is a great artist and i aint dissing her or nothin'...just wonder why NZONAIR need to cover the cost of the catering...

Quite honestly as an artist a feel like we have banged our heads up against a brick wall with NZONAIR...we don't fit the bill of they want, fine, we will make videos and record singles on the cheap in our own time.......I just wonder why winning awards (for radio singles and music videos) getting good reviews, selling a decent amount of albums (considering how little money goes into indy promo) topping the indy charts, touring a fair bit, getting played on the radio (and that includes on 'comercial' station and good ole national radio) etc doesn't amount to comercial potential.

I have read the manifesto, I don't resent their motives, I am just little frustrated

they seem like good ideas to me......I am just getting amngsty over the comercial non-comercial radio argument......when you get played on every B Net station in the country you are reaching a huge chunck of the gig going, cd buying market. They out rate Channel Z in a lot of towns...its pretty annoying that you don't get respect for that...arrggghhh I am NZONAIR bitching again, I am so bored of it...and with you Noizy Boy..this is way too dejavu

Devil Rider, it's near-exclusively your comments and your music that have changed my views on nz on air.

I was going to start thinking aloud about nzoa expanding to push commercial format in favour of some of our really great crossover artists rather than focussing entirely on bands that already adhere to the commercial format... Then I checked the funding decisions back to August 2001 and there was actually a fairly healthy smattering of what I'd consider 'crossover' acts - Goldenhorse, Concord Dawn, Goodshirt, Voom...The Brunettes and Minuit finally started getting funding this year (although both their albums were self-funded, to my knowledge). For lack of a better definition, by crossover I mean that they loosely fit the commercial format, but the bnets are still playlisting them. :)

I guess someone's going to miss out somewhere - there's only so much money to go around, but I'd love the day when NZ On Air started adjusting their definition of commercial rather than sticking with 'safe' bands. There's a bit of chaff on those funding lists - bands that haven't made much impact on the kiwi music scene, but they still keep getting funded, time after time. I could suggest they could put an upper limit on the amount of funding that goes to any one band, but I guess that might encourage the bigger record companies to de-prioritise their longer lasting artists and that'd be kinda crap...

it's all so complicated...

// if we look at the most visited artist forums,
// then the nzm vote would probably look like this

god forbid. but, yes .. we'd have to enforce a 'one person, one vote system', limited, perhaps, to the top 25 posters on the site. ;)

oh, I don't know about better, just quicker...

// if we look at the most visited artist forums,
// then the nzm vote would probably look like this

then again, if you look at your list Sam, 3 of the 5 bands there are on indie labels, so, again, who are we to deny such hard-working bands their just desserts if they're proving popular with the punters?

so its safe to say from the figures for 2003 [exc dec] that 30-35% of available funding went to artists signed to foriegn labels? Is it an acceptable proportion of resources to be spent in this manner? If the budget for next year is 11.7 mill would the 3.9mill on foriegn labels [assuming similar dispersial] make my arguement more or less valid? The crux of the point I am continuing to try and raise is that the funding structure is clearly open to mainipulation. that is not to say that cronyism would not/dos'e not exist in the NZ music'scene'. I say it again, no foriegn business should be subidised from the New zealand tax take. Im collating some figures on what some of the record companys who are recieving our tax aid actually own. I hope to post these on Fri noizyboy[19/12] when hopefully I can add some replies to your questions. hope Im not boring you, Peace and love

fancy seeing you in a topic like this noizy

you should cut and past your 6 best sentances from the 100 billion different refernces to this tired argument.. like a noizy best of .. each time this topic comes up you can slap down your best ofs - with bold tags .. for an instant shut down...

sorry for putting threads out of order again. i'll get told off again. the new zealand taxpayer subidised advertising for the following arms manufactors. sony/bmg collaborts with us army , part owns a firm called power Corpopation[I think their canadian] part makers for tanks and fighter aircraft.warner/Aol/emi doners to bush pres campaign[2000] owns hughes corporation makers of fine helicoptors, also invovled with Raytheon industries, proud suppliers of tomahawk cruise missles,"bombs and landmines r us" universial has merged with general electric, i mean these are bad people Noizyboy,manufactors for engines for planes bombing Afghanistan, colombia ,Iraqi civilians. they make the triggers for nuclear bombs to and I think they are heavily invovled in the "son of star wars" missle defence system. 3.9mill or $3.90 i dont care I resent the fact that tax take goes anywhere near the agents of satan that are the arms/munitions industry. still o.K with the funding structure? Im picking your anti-war[iraq] so im interested in your comments. If you wanna check my claims/opinions/left wing rantings I lost this really good source[pathetic excuse I know] but try Godspeed you black emporeor cos I know they did some cd art that delves into this. as ever peace and love to you all..

Foal30, it would probably be a good idea to vet prospective artists on their political views too. We can't have someone who voted for John Banks getting funding can we?

Xmas cheer for everyone ive just got of the phone and the mayor sends his warmest regards. says he knows quite a few of you from the Young nats. apologosises for anyone losing their house to placate the oil industry oops decongest auckland roads.

Good day all, dear noizyboy
1] first off thanks for the microsoft info. Im endevoring to get some sources, any help from you on apple would be appriciated. i assume you dont work for them. i am very un-knowledgeable on computers, so that Ie browser comment needs to explained to me. sorry for entering a format where my tecnniqual info is so low.
2] not swayed by your arguement. stating opinion in a calm manner with listed sources without recourse to belittleing and name calling carries a lot of weight with me. I appriciate the tone and conduct of your posts and the fact that you can reply to a request or clairification of issue. i would also venture that it has been my posts that have "expanded" this discourse and you have not rubbished this instead attemped to answer the posts not matter how irrelevant you felt that issue to be. I am attemping to be so cordial in the future. I may also post 'contensious' or "inflamortory" statements to get a better understanding of other commentors. this can be seen by some as decitful or misrepresentation, my justification is that it nearly always allows more sources/ info to be entered into the debate/disscussion.
3] I again apologise if my posts are ambigious or not understandable. "funding structure open to mainipulation." This i belive is self evident. If entrents to a funding body contest from an un-even finical poistion then those with the most resources will get the best hearing/oppourtunites. this is how capatilism and our justice system work. those with the most resources are the ones most likley to rort the system. who has the most resources? this is not intended to read that only an 'indie/unsigned" only entry criterior would prevent "cronyism". devil-rider anyone?
4] 'unfathomable". If you genuinlly believe that profits generated by NZ subsidiarys do not go offshore then I must agree to disagree with you. In light of your posts I do not think that is your poisition, you justify it as their is some good coming out of it for Nz artists so I'll ignore/discount the bad stuff. To make my poisiton clear, any state funded advertising of weapon dealers/ bush donors/ nuclear bomb constructors/ is a open an example of "private profit from public funded" as you can get. i believe we shouldnt give them a cent.
5] trickle up/down: down is lies and theft. Up is something i hold as true. evey individual can take political action by where they spend their money.
6] Legal, not something that duelly concerns me. just cos its legal/illegal dont make it right/wrong. would women have the vote, africian americans civil rights if protest[some of which illeagel ] had not happened?as ever the forces of the ruling elite denided people their human rights to protect their fiscal intrests.and that my friend is the ongoing struggle against the corperote machine that has a hand in every pie why systamaticly oppressing the poor.again any help, comments, criticism welcome. Peace and love to all.

1.

// first off thanks for the microsoft info. Im endevoring to get some sources

it's been fairly widely reported that many US military PCs and servers run Windows, a fact that generally comes to light when the software crashes, eg...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/2860189.stm

In June of this year Microsoft signed a US$470 million contract to supply software to the US Army - the biggest deal in the IT company's history.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/128059_msftmilitary25.html

try this google search, there's plenty more...
http://www.google.com/search?q=microsoft+%22us+army

and, in fact, if you look in Microsoft's 'case studies' section, under 'U', you'll find analyses some of the US armed forces they've worked with, including...

* U.S. Air Force Standard Systems Group (SSG)
* U.S. Air Force, Air Mobility Command
* U.S. Air Force, Pacific Air Forces (PACAF)
* U.S. Army
* U.S. Army Reserves
* U.S. Fleet Services
* U.S. Navy

http://www.microsoft.com/resources/casestudies/Company.asp?SearchString=...

// any help from you on apple would be appriciated.

well, I've looked and looked, but other than the one article on the lack of Macs in the Iraq war (from wired mag: http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,57961,00.html), and a couple of references to some apple servers to run some US military websites (http://zdnet.com.com/2100-11-515769.html), I can't find anything that hints they're used regularly in an operational way, let alone contracted out wholesale by the military to supply software and/or hardware.

While hunting around for info on apple and the US military, it was interesting to see that UNIX and LINUX both pop up as OSs for various military applications as well.

So, yes, it would indeed appear that Mac is the way to go for the anti-war brigade.

// that Ie browser comment needs to explained to me

when you're looking at the web (and if you're reading this, you're doing exactly that), look at the menu bar at the top of the window, go to the far right, it should say 'Help', click it, the bottom option should say 'About [insert name of browser here]'. If you're using a Windows PC, chances are it's Internet Explorer (often abbreviated as IE).

2. cheers.

3.

// If entrents to a funding body contest from an un-even finical poistion
// then those with the most resources will get the best hearing/oppourtunites.
// ... those with the most resources are the ones most likley to rort the system.

but haven't I shown that the indies, ie. those with virtually no money, are dominating the funding rounds? And increasingly so. A similar study of the funding rounds from 10 years ago would show a far greater bias towards the majors, a bias that has, in my opinion, swung greatly away from them because of NZ On Air's willingness to give indie-backed artists a go (and, admittedly, the indie artists fulfilling the required criteria).

// If you genuinlly believe that profits generated by NZ subsidiarys do not go offshore then I must // agree to disagree with you.

oh no, I totally believe the profits head offshore. no debate there. I just don't think the profits from NZ-based major label artists would be so great that they would filter all the way up the great multi-national money chain and work their way back down again to be part of the financial package that helps create another Black Hawk helicopter. Indeed, I would seriously doubt any nz-made profits would make their way out of the international music divisions at all, considering their current financial woes in the face of p2p and the US financial downturn.

For me, the issue is whether or not that initial $5000 grant is getting used here in NZ to hire local workers to help create a local product. It is. And if Sony want to add another $120000 to the project then who's really losing out? (just the PAYE on that one project - assuming 50% goes on wages, and the lowest tax rate of 19% - would come to $11400.)

5.

// trickle up/down: down is lies and theft. Up is something i hold as true.

beliefs. any sources?

6.

// Legal, not something that duelly concerns me.
// just cos its legal/illegal dont make it right/wrong.

yes, I think I agreed with you there with: "even if the US military's end use of said products isn't."

Again, I'm aware I'm not going to sway your convictions on this one, but here's a point to finish with. Without knowing too much about the financial comings and goings of any of the four major labels operating here in NZ (none of whom are particularly forthcoming with annual reports or financials on their websites)(or FMR/Nun, who I think we can safely leave out of the 'connected-to-the-arms-trade' business), I'd say nearly all of them run on pretty tight margins. The profits they would make would almost certainly be swallowed up by their larger music parents, which are seeing their revenues falling (retail music sales in the first half of 2003 fell by around 10%), to the point where Sony Music's global third quarter profits for this year were only US$2.7 million). The planned mergers of BMG/Warner (failed), EMI/Warner (failed) and Sony/BMG (negotiating) would suggest that the music companies don't really have the money to spare for their arms-creating sister companies.

So, that's my attitude: the big labels may be related to the big bad weapons dealers, but I don't think there's a lot of financial dealings between those cousins. Locally, the majors are doing a great job at picking up the mainstream (and a few not-so-mainstream) acts, winning the the general public around to local sounds (musical cultural cringe had, until recently, been a big issue in NZ - the majors' efforts over the last 10 years with the likes of Bic Runga, Zed, Stellar*, Goodshirt, Blindspott and the like has seen that cringe almost evaporate), and provided the local scene with expertise, management and professionalism that benefits the entire industry. To deny them access to the same funds and advantages that the indies have would, in my mind, be somewhat undemocratic. Having said that, it's easy to think of measures that could be taken that would ensure they don't get more than their fair share (see my other 'suggestions' post). To criticise, boycott and put sanctions on their efforts because of vague corporate links to the arms industry is, to use an hackneyed phrase: "cutting off your nose to spite your face."

My ongoing pain Mr Noizy is mostly to an ongoing hemaroid I obtained well drunkenly dancing to The Exponents when i was 12. and umm to anyone who is complaining about Noizies ongoing defence on NZONAIR....I can say that i have arguing with him for many months and his arguments of fckn valid...Its a complicated issue, and the main thing is; thank god we have some government funding for this sort of thing coz its an absolut bitch trying to make money as an NZ muso and well, artist wage, creative nz, nzonair etc make the good shit that happens in NZ just a tiny bit more viable....I don't think the feelers should ever get another penny, but if they do its hardley going help the arms industry (unless people start killing themselves when they hear the feelers covering the pixies)

// can you run cool edit pro on apple?

no, but cool edit has just been bought by adobe and renamed 'audition pro', so will probably turn up in a mac form sometime soon (adobe are usually pretty good at making their products cross-platform). besides, if you go mac, you open yourself up to the joys of free pro tools, an infinitely more powerful beast than cool edit.

anyway, you're starting to lose me a bit with all the economic stuff - the whole trickle-up/trickle-down thing seems to be related much more to tax breaks for the wealthy/poor, in contrast to what we were originally talking about, which was NZ On Air funding for specific NZ/International labels. There's no need for trickle-down with regards to the $5000 given to a major label to make a video - the money is going straight into local workers pockets.

// any program that claims to benifit society as a whole
// by increasing the ability of the rich to opress the poor is shortsighted at least.
// any glance at the child poverty, education ability ,health situation in
// this country should make this apparnt

I don't think the NZ On Air funding scheme abets child poverty in NZ by "increasing the ability of the rich to opress the poor". Again, the majority of the funding goes directly to indie labels who in many cases are running their businesses on the smell of an oily rag.

I'll leave all your political assertions alone, as they would no doubt just lead to a long-winded debate that could find a better home than a nzmusic forum. feel free to start up a topic in the bar if you want.

and with regards to my own political leanings, my manifesto is fairly thin, and pretty basic: the nz music industry, and what's good for it. voted alliance/alliance in the last election, if that's of any interest.

// you're being wasted at the MetService. Let's get you into some
// High Court, or into Parliament - or possibly even into NZOA!!

ahahaha! but it's so nice up here. get to ride the cable car up to the botanic gardens then the walk to work. and what a view from my little library/IT corner. very pleasant. couldn't cope with being an MP - waaay to much stress (and other MPs to contend with, ugh), and my total lack of legal background would keep me from the judiciary, I suspect. NZOA, on the other hand...