//haha...buddy, you wouldn't be calling it "short change" if you guys got some love from NZOA. Your latest vid cost a great deal less then $5k and it looks very cool.

I think our vid looks fucking fab for what we paid for it. You're right though, we certainly would stick our noses up in the air about it, given the opportunity.

and

//ah yes...but if the funding were $10k...then after 3-4 years would directors be whining and asking for more?

Yes. People can't help themselves, it is the way the industry works, until we find better solutions for less dollars.....wonder if this ever happen.

I do disagree with this.

I feel short changed when bands can't even afford to pay me $50 for photos.
I feel short changed when either i design album artwork for free or i ask a friend to do it for free

There are many, many aspects of this industry that need more money before music video funding gets more. Many directors can make kick ass vids for $5k and don't complain.

This is by means a personal attack on Chris, I know how he feels about this, and I appreciate that he feels his art is being cheapened....but what about the rest of us fuckers who don't get shit?

But from NZOA's perspective, where the primary objective is airplay, do you think that NZOA vids would get more plays per year if there were fewer, but better funded ideas?

Unlike Chris I'm not suggesting that there's a correlation between 'better funded' and 'creatively better', just in terms of competing for airplay with dominant american mainstream vids. You can hardly say that most of that big budget stuff has a scrap of creativity put into it, yet with the bigger budgets 'n all... ???

NZOA do not care about the artistic merit of a video, just as do not care about the artistic merit of a song. It is all about its commercial viability....NZOA used to take a different outlook with video funding, but now the song has to be radio friendly as well...they decided there was no point giving money to fund videos which wouldn't go on to get airplay.

Less Videos being funded means any "less commercial bands "who might get a lucky break from NZOA every now and then, would now be fucked. It will just mean that Bic Runga gets to have twice as much catering :)

what a greedy bastard. 5 grand is heaps of money to spend on a video.
good ideas are no more expensive than the shit ones we have to watch.
now in the digital age this kind of escapade should be cheaper than ever.

but the nz or AIr are elitist f@#ks
if there was any sort of fair minded system there should be no grants for major lable acts!!!!!!!!!!!!
and
perhaps
and don't get me wrong here. this is just an inking of an idea.
maybe NZ on AIR could score their own gear;
CAMERAS, LIGHTS, FAST RENDERING COMPUTERS, LEGIT WAREZ
hire some in house experts. (editors, technicians, directors
lose 90% of the f@*king commitee
and give everyone the opportunity to make a video on a case by case basis
same with the recording grants (why not just save a few million and build a non profit studio)

but some guy who gets given money to make films, complaining about being given money to make films,
should try making films with no money.

toss
er

foetus boys idea?????? rinsa!!!!!!!!
19:02 · 13 Dec 03

Best of the Boards » NZon AIR funding » yeah this is a good idea trillion,
and perhaps instead of just allocating the grant on the merits of the track (Nz on Air system)
the grant could be given to the artists who have a creative propsal as to what kind of video to make!
I've seen a lot of good bands recieve video grants with a good track
and then waste it on a shitty video concept which gets played twice
on channel 4

but you took the bait dude

// was ALWAYS meant to be met half way by the label

and i know they've given up with this dream now.

i recon anyone who starts a sentence with i recon must be billowing over with intellect. and i also recon, that if new zealand wants its bands to be keeping up with an international standard of quality of music, image and exposure, then more money should be poured into the bands that are good. it is the bands responcibility to make fucking good music that people can relate to and want to hear. not to sell sausages outside the warehouse to fundraise for their fucking video clip. overseas, music pays for all the bells and whistles of video clips. sorry to say folks, but thats why linkon part can afford mean c.g. in their videos. music pays for all that shit. how many nz bands have shitty videos. quite a few. nz on air should decide which bands are going to be pushed in the media and then fucking push them. give them a mean video. give them expencive haircuts, clothes and underpants. and make them national icons. the music will then pay back for all of that. take john toogood. he's gone from sitting on a couch,(home again) to sitting inside some sort of firewall(castles in the sand) and all he had to do was say "castles" like an american! come on nz. give our bands the rockstardom they deserve. before they leave and make fuckloads of cash elsewhere.

//It is all about its commercial viability

//we go back to the mid nineties again when the only bands on the radio are shitty pop/rock

Why wouldn't NZOA make a decision to support more MOR vids ? I mean, that's their mandate, likelyhood of commercial airplay. I'm not saying it's right or anything, but are we questioning how much vid $5K gets you, or which sort of bands should get the $5K in the first place???

Obviously there are people out there with their own musical taste and opinions. For the other 95% of people, they will like what ever is being played on their choice of radio station. They let the station deciepher for them what they will like and disslike. If these people were suddenly introduced to some new sounding music that was then played as frequently as the fucking feelers new single "larger thatn shit" maybe they would like that too. Chances are they would. Why wouldnt they? Its on their radio station. The media tool forming all their musical tastes for them. After all, those who have musical tastes own CDs by the shitlaod. Those who dont, listen to Channel Z.

Mikey.

Your long, un-punctuated comments which seem off topis and irrelevant are just confusing man.

// It's about likelyhood of commercial airplay. It's about big bands, right?

nope, it's about bands with commercial airplay potential. you don't have to be big to be radio-friendly.

//you don't have to be big to be radio-friendly.

Oh, agreed. I guess what I mean is how do NZOA measure their success- by airplay quota generated by the bands they've funded, or by the number of smaller, radio friendly bands they fund per year. In the end they have to question which bands will take the funding the furtherest, and I would have thought that a well established band will usually get more mileage than a new band.

// but you and I both know that NZOA don't care about little bands when evaluating their video grant decisions.

I think they do a pretty good job. Welly bands The Accelerants and 1QA both got funding in the last round. these are not "Big" bands.

NZOA do actually make an effort to find out the "little" bands making waves.

Also, since when did having a "better" video mean more airplay? I can a bunch of fucken wicked videos that saw fractional airplay...when compared to "best indie video of the year" by 48May

// how do NZOA measure their success-
// by airplay quota generated by the bands they've funded

from what I've seen of NZ On Air press releases, and their own mission statement, this is exactly it. They're almost entirely focussed on getting NZ radio (and music video) figures up. Who's doing it for them, big or little bands, is irrelevant, and I don't think the relative size or popularity of a band would play a large part in any funding decision.

(specifically 'large part' - for, of course, it would be difficult to entirely remove a bands popularity from the equation - high profile acts already have one foot in the door with regards to convincing commercial radio stations to play them, so as you point out, this factor may sway the decision makers a bit on some of the closer calls).

I'd like to think that NZOA don't have any particular bias towards bigger and major label acts, and I think the video grants that were handed out last year (mostly to indie label bands) reflect this.

also...lets not try and bring this forum to a "bitching about NZOA's funding policy" becuase that shit has been discussed time and time again.

cut to the chase. Would $10K budgets make a noticable difference? Do we need them? Would it be really beneficial to nz Artists?

someone at EMI told me Goldenhorse where on them...and that Siren was just a token label thing.....i think the person at EMI wasn't really in the know on this one though.....mayby someone vould clarify?

//lets not try and bring this forum to a "bitching about NZOA's funding policy"

Oh, I'm yawning just thinking about it...

// It would be a conflict of interest if one of the bands in the competition had some sort of connection with Satellite or Coke. Besides, wasn't the winner ultimately decided by public vote?

One of the members of Bolbox Rex goes out with Jane Yee who works at Satellite. And the winner may have been by public vote, but the shortlist of three was decided by them.

yep. the ability for the NZ On Air crew to slip in a few leftfield acts in each round would be dramatically lessened.

ulimately, Chris Graham has a point regarding the $5000 being an impediment to film-makers, and it does limit the amount that can be done. But (a) NZOA aren't in the business of furthering and funding local film makers careers, they just want to get the local music on air, great video, good video or mediocre video. and (b) for a new band, a $5000 grant is a heap of cash to make a video with, especially if you've got mates who work at Oktobor or some other post-production whiz shop. More established bands should, as you point out above somewhere, be hitting up their labels for more cash to make videos - I mean, really, who ultimately stands to benefit financially from a well-made video that generates radio and tv play, and album/single sales for a band? The label? Or NZ On Air?

I guess NZOA would be doing someone elses job if they began to consider whether $5000 was 'fair' or not to directors. And it's true thet there are plenty of examples where NZOA can say they've achieved what they wanted with the funding they've given.

And a director can always pick and choose- I mean surely they don't rely soley on NZOA to pay for their groceries, and there's probably a ton of other reasons for feeling 'creatively stiffled' than how much they're being paid.

I mean, it would probably be more of an issue to me if NZOA were the ones complaining that not enough good vids were being made with their grants.

Oh, BTW blink re the whole 'small bands come last 'thing from before,

//The Accelerants and 1QA both got funding in the last round. these are not "Big" bands.

The only independant artist who qualified for a video grant in the last funding round was Fastcrew with 'Suburbia.'

[ external link ]