Reflecting and Developing Identity and Culture: Is New Zealand's Public Music Funding Model "Making Tracks" Achieving its Objectives?

Reflecting and Devolving Identity and Culture: Is New Zealand’s

Public Music Funding Model “Making Tracks” Achieving its

Objectives?

By Alaister J Moughan

A colloquy submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Music Business,

Department of Steinhardt School of Culture, Education and Human Development, New York University

Summer, 2015.

Reflecting and Devolving Identity and Culture: Is New Zealand’s Public Music Funding Model “Making Tracks” Achieving its Objectives?

1

PREFACE

I wish to thank Professor Catherine Moore for her tremendous assistance as colloquy

supervisor. Her guidance during the research and drafting stage were essential and very

much appreciated. Additionally I would like to thank Bernard Coleman, Max Harris and

Alessandra Licul for editing various drafts as well Julian Carswell for giving me permission

to use the ‘I Don’t Want to Grow Old’ video still. Finally, thanks to The Mint Chicks, Shayne

Carter, Die! Die! Die!, Lontalius, Surf City, Flying Nun and the other numerous New Zealand

music identities who have warmed my heart and ears.


2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE 1

INTRODUCTION 4

CHAPTER 1 THE NEW ZEALAND MUSIC INDUSTRY 9

A. BACKGROUND ON NEW ZEALAND AND THE NEW ZEALAND MUSIC INDUSTRY 9 B. NON-‐LABEL MUSIC FUNDING 15 THE NEW ZEALAND MUSIC COMMISSION 16 THE NEW ZEALAND MUSIC FOUNDATION 18 CREATIVE NEW ZEALAND 18 NEW ZEALAND ON AIR 19

CHAPTER 2 RATIONALES FOR THE PUBLIC FUNDING OF POPULAR MUSIC 23

A. THEORIES OF THE SOCIAL IMPORTANCE OF CULTURE 24 B. ECONOMIC JUSTIFICATIONS 30

CHAPTER 3: NEW ZEALAND ON AIR’S DUTY TO REFLECT AND DEVELOP NEW ZEALAND IDENTITY AND CULTURE 32

A. CULTURAL IMPERIALISM 35 B. WHAT CONSTITUTES LOCAL MUSIC? 36 C. NEW ZEALAND MUSIC AND NATIONAL IDENTITY 42 D. NEW ZEALAND MUSIC AND THE ‘CULTURAL CRINGE’ 46

CHAPTER 4 THE MUSIC FUNDING POLICIES OF NEW ZEALAND ON AIR 48

A. THE FORMATION AND OPERATION OF NZOA 48 PHASE ONE – THE PILOT (1991-‐1993) 48 PHASE TWO – ARRIVAL OF THE KIWI HIT DISC (1993-‐1996) 49 PHASE THREE – RADIO PLUGGERS (1996 – 1999) 49 PHASE FOUR – MAKING AND MARKETING (1999-‐2005) 50 PHASE FIVE -‐ INTERNATIONAL AWARENESS (2005-‐2011) 51 B. NZOA MAKING TRACKS 52 NOTABLE CRITICISMS 52 THE CADDICK REPORT 56 THE MAKING TRACKS MODEL 60 FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS -‐ NZOA ONLINE 66


3

CHAPTER 5 CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF NZOA MUSIC FUNDING & MAKING TRACKS 71

A. SCOPE OF FUNDING 72 B. FORM OF FUNDING 76 RECORDING INFRASTRUCTURE 78 SCHOOL TOURS 79 RADIO COMMUNITIES 80 EXPORT IDEAS 81 C. OPERATION IMPROVEMENTS 84

CHAPTER 6 RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE NZOA MUSIC FUNDING & MAKING TRACKS 86

A. CONTESTABLE FUNDING BROADCAST FUNDING REQUIRES INFRASTRUCTURE 91 B. SOFT TARGETS 94 C. LIMIT FOCUS TO DOMESTIC CONCERNS 96 D. EXPLICIT DELEGATION OF WHO SUPPORTS THE EXPORT OF NZ MUSIC 96 E. WIDER CONVERSATION ABOUT NZ BROADCASTING 96 F. AFTERWORD – A CALL FOR PASSION 99

EPILOGUE 105

BIBLIOGRAPHY 106

INTERVIEWS CONDUCTED BY ALAISTER MOUGHAN 113

INTERVIEW CONSENT FORMS 114

STUDENT CONSENT FORM 127


4

INTRODUCTION

Who cares about New Zealand on Air -‐ the public funding agency for New Zealand popular

music1? I most certainly did. For the previous 18 months of my Masters I wrestled with

exactly what NZoA was, what it does and how to talk about it. I had scribbled around 27

pages on about the funding of public culture, its intended effects, why it is important, ideas

of cultural imperialism, the foreign dominance of popular music and the export of music

overseas – until I realized I had to nuance the scope of my thesis. Zita Joyce’s excellent and

comprehensive thesis ‘Hearing Ourselves: Globalization, The State, Local Content and New

Zealand Radio’ had already described these issues in much more detail. I had fewer pages

to tell my story. So I started again. A lawyer by training I needed a tighter structure.

My revised starting point was to consider the target of my recommendations: NZoA itself.

In one of my first interviews a local musician told me that it is easy to think of NZoA as the

‘dole’2 for musicians but it has a mandate -‐ broadcasting. Effectively NZoA is a neoliberal-‐

influenced mechanism to ensure a sufficient amount of local content is broadcast without

directly intervening by imposing local content quotas or funding a comprehensive public

broadcaster.

There have been a number of criticisms around the singles, albums and music videos which

NZoA funds. Many have suggested that in a small industry money could be better spent in

other areas: promotion, tour support, or even a living wage for artists. But the reality is

1 New Zealand on Air is shortened to NZoA hereon. Also, note this colloquy only discusses the music funding 2 Colloquial term for social welfare in New Zealand.


5

NZoA can’t do this without stretching its mandate. It can only fund broadcast activities.

“Making Tracks” is NZoA’s latest music funding model.

The first three chapters of my colloquy establish a tripod of fundamentals of NZoA’s

funding -‐ what New Zealand music is funded, why public funding of popular music is

necessary in New Zealand and who this funding is targeted at.

Chapter One describes the unique background of NZoA. It will also look at the context of

the New Zealand music industry, its size, attributes and other bodies which provide

support to local musicians. This background is important.

Although I initially planned a comprehensive comparison of the NZoA funding model with

similar models in Australia and Canada, as I researched further I found this unique

background was pivotal to examining NZoA. This background limited the effectiveness of

comparative analysis and rather suggested an internal examination of the unique issues of

the New Zealand music market.

Chapter One will also examine what music NZoA funds. I will discuss NZoA and its focus on

funding popular music in the context of other sources of public funding for music in New

Zealand.

Chapter Two will discuss why public funding of popular music is required. It will consider

both social and economic rationales.


6

The final limb on the tripod, before I talk about the implementation of the system itself, is

what music should we fund? Chapter Three begins by discussing the concept of cultural

imperialism. In New Zealand’s music and arts community the concept of cultural

imperialism is a frequent part of the conversation of local identity and the necessity for

public funding of the arts. As constructed most fiercely by the New Zealand Labour Party

in the late 1990s the cultural imperialism thesis posits that the dominant ‘in-‐flows’ of

foreign popular content, mainly from the United Kingdom and United States hindered the

ability for local pop voices to be heard.

Applying the cultural imperialism thesis to popular music is complicated by the commercial

and international framework of the music business. Funding popular music is associated

not only with supporting local expression but also supporting an artists ‘career,’ which for

a New Zealand artist typically means exporting their music overseas.

This raises the most contentious issue yet -‐ what is New Zealand music? Since I was 18, The

Mint Chicks3 have been the reason I wanted to get involved with music. If I were CEO of

NZoA, all money would be put towards a national front charged with re-‐uniting the Nielson

brothers, Paul Roper and Michael Logie and reforming the group. The Mint Chicks’ lead

singer Kody Nielson may have sung in a local accent but the band’s influences were

3 The cover picture is a still from The Mint Chicks’ ‘I Don’t Want To Grow Old’ music video, funded by NZoA.


7

distinctly global. The band themselves hated the tag ‘Kiwi music’ with a passion.4 Is this

‘New Zealand’ music which funding should support?

Accordingly, Chapter Three will look at NZoA’s agnostic definition of ‘New Zealand’ music

as ‘music made by New Zealanders’ and the effect of globalization on New Zealand music.

The globalized pop music industry in which foreign music and trends swiftly flow into New

Zealand and occasionally out of New Zealand is an important part of this discussion.

The next concept introduced is cultural hybridity. Hybridity concerns how this foreign

content and the demands of international commercial fit and format are absorbed and

reflected in New Zealand popular music.

Hybridity is also relevant to the outflows. Many interviewees raised the point that ‘carbon

copy’ New Zealand versions of international bands faced even higher odds of ‘breaking

through’ overseas than the average NZ band. The small number of New Zealand success

stories suggest share unique artistic characters are usually out of trend with the rest of the

music industry.

These mainly academic discussions are important as they form a tripod to hold up the

practical discussion and examination of NZoA in Chapters Five and Six. Chapter Five

presents in greater detail the history of NZoA and its development in five distinct phases up

4 See the bands blog at www.myspace.com/themintchicks/blog.


8

to the “Making Tracks” funding model. Chapter Five examines criticism of the system both

from first hand interviews and publications at the time.

Finally, Chapter Six presents five specific recommendations NZoA could adopt to more

effectively pursue its mandate. These recommendations are influenced by Simon Frith’s

theories of the social utility of popular music and how NZoA could enhance these qualities

in New Zealand music. In this section I ultimately conclude that NZoA as a standalone

alternative to local quotas or public radio is insufficient. I will focus on the neo-‐liberal

instincts inherent in the system and the flawed nature of the creation of NZoA under the

Broadcasting Act which never specified what ‘reflecting and developing New Zealand

identity and culture’ is or how NZoA was meant to achieve this.

Accordingly, my recommendations go beyond the current broadcasting ambit and suggest

NZoA operations should be focused domestically on the community whose identity it is

intended to frame. I suggest considering present debates around national identity that it is

time for New Zealand to have a wider conversation about New Zealand broadcasting.

These recommendations are bold and outside the existing ambit of NZoA which although

ran with admirable intention has morphed into a confusing muddle of solutions without

any pivotal focus on issues of the domestic music scene and music broadcasting. With New

Zealand pop music arguably having its biggest global spotlight with the recent success of

Lorde, it’s time for the discussion around the public funding of New Zealand music to be

viewed in totality rather than tinkered with behind the scenes.


9

CHAPTER 1 THE NEW ZEALAND MUSIC INDUSTRY

A. Background on New Zealand and the New Zealand Music Industry Before examining New Zealand’s music funding agencies it’s necessary to examine the

environment of New Zealand and the New Zealand Music Industry in which these agencies

operate. New Zealand is a small country at the bottom of the world. Statistics New Zealand

estimates New Zealand’s population as at 30 June 2013 to be just under 4.5 million. In

comparison at a similar point in time New York’s population was estimated at 8.4 million

(United States Census Bureau).

The music industry is predominantly focused in the city of Auckland located in the North

Island of New Zealand. Auckland has a population estimated to be just over 1.4 million

making up around a third of New Zealand’s population. The urban metropolis of Auckland

dominates the country with the next largest city New Zealand’s capital Wellington having a

population of 393,000. A map of New Zealand is shown below.


10

Courtesy Lonely Planet via Getty Images

New Zealand’s music industry is similarly small. Recorded Music NZ, the official

representative agency for record labels and recording artists in New Zealand states the

recorded music market of New Zealand to be $NZ 66 million, a tiny fraction of the global

market estimated to be around $US 14.97 Billion (Recorded Music NZ). Overall the music

industry was estimated by PricewaterHouseCoopers to contribute $NZ 438 million to the

New Zealand economy.


11

Although all three of the major labels technically have a presence in New Zealand, local

staff typically don’t venture into double digits. Recorded music unit sales numbers are also

small. The total sale of New Zealand artists in New Zealand during 2013 was 851,298 units

(Recorded Music NZ). International success is a prerequisite for commercial success

(Joyce, Hearing Ourselves 7). The large investment required for international success means

that few local acts are signed and developed in New Zealand. Typically artists are advised

to travel to larger centers in Australia or even London to pursue a commercial career.

There are also a number of smaller independent labels varying from the global cult label

Flying Nun to individual artist labels such as The Black Seeds Ltd. The independent label

association, Independent Music New Zealand has over 50 members (Independent Music

New Zealand) and publishes an ‘indie’ chart in addition to the official Top 40 chart

moderated by Recorded Music New Zealand. To give international readers an idea of the

most popular music genres in New Zealand the table below shows the top ten selling

albums and singles of 2014 both globally and in New Zealand.


12

Top$Ten$AlbumsWorld New$ZealandArtist Album Artist Album

1 Various Frozen:-The-Songs Ed-Sheeran X2 Taylor-Swift 1989 Sol3-Mio Sol3-Mio3 Ed-Sheeran x Taylor-Swift 19894 Coldplay Ghost-Stories Sam-Smith In-The-Lonely-Hour5 Sam-Smith In-The-Lonely-Hour Michael-Buble Christmas6 One-Direction Four Various Frozen:-The-Songs7 AC/DC Rock-or-Bust Lorde Pure-Heroine8 Various-Artists Guardians-of-the-Galaxy Pink-Floyd The-Endless-River9 Pink-Floyd The-Endless-River Coldplay Ghost-Stories10 Lorde Pure-Heroine Devilskin We-Rise

Top$Ten$Digital$SinglesWorld New$ZealandArtist Song Artist Song

1 Pharrell-Williams Happy Pharrell-Williams Happy2 Katy-Perry-feat-Juicy-J Dark-Horse Meghan-Trainer All-About-That-Bass3 John-Legend All-of-Me Taylor-Swift Shake-It-Off4 Meghan-Trainor All-About-That-Bass John-Legend All-of-Me5 Idina-Menzel Let-It-Go Sam-Smith Stay-With-Me6 Pitbull-feat-Ke$ha Timber Ed-Sheeran I-See-Fire7 Iggy-Azalea-feat-Charli-XCX Fancy Ed-Sheeran Thinking-Out-Loud8 Ariana-Grande-feat-Iggy-Azalea Problem A-Great-Big-World Say-Something9 MAGIC! Rude The-Madden-Brothers We-Are-Done10 Enrique-Iglesias Bailando Magic!- Rude

Courtesy of CAAMA ‘The Music Market in Australia and New Zealand” 9-‐10 and IFPI “Best Sellers” available at www.ifpi.org.

This above sample, as well as my own insights from growing up in New Zealand shows that

international content is very dominant in the New Zealand. There are no local singles in the

top ten. Interesting anomalies are Sol3 Mio (a local opera trio), Devilskin (a local metal

band) and Michael Buble.

The charts also demonstrate that a number of local bands have sold well in terms of album

but without any international success. The exception being Lorde. This isn’t unusual, with

other local acts such as Six60 and Fat Freddy’s Drop historically having a similar success to

Sol3 Mio and Devilskin. Although this sounds promising in aggregate such sales are less

significant as in New Zealand Gold selling status is set at 7,500 units and Platinum at


13

15,000 compared to 500,000 and 1,000,000 units to achieve the same status in the United

States. (Recorded Music New Zealand)

In terms of singles, urban music does not sell as well as it does internationally.

Additionally small differences are likely the result of a presence in New Zealand through

either touring or media. For example, The Madden brothers are featured on the Australian

television talent show ‘The Voice’ which rates strongly in New Zealand while Ed Sheernan

has visited New Zealand recently even featuring on beloved Australian soap opera ‘Home

and Away’ (TVNZ).

The final point to note is the dominance of foreign ownership in the broadcasting of New

Zealand music. This dominance results from large scale deregulation in the mid 1980’s

which also borne NZoA as we have it today (Cocker 46). In 2007 leading academics Matt

Mollgaard and Bill Rosenberg described the situation:

Four companies, all overseas owned, dominate the New Zealand news media. There is

a near duopoly in two of the three main media – print and radio – a monopoly in pay

television, and only three significant competitors in free-‐to-‐air television (Mollgaard

and Rosenberg 86).

The foreign-‐owned dominance of local media is an imperative problem in exposing local

music to a significant audience.


14

The environment is much the same in 2014 (Mollgaard, Skype Interview). Although there is

a lively student radio network most of radio is controlled by Media Works and The Radio

Network whose stations cover around 85% of the New Zealand audience (Mollgaard, Skype

Interview). This control is critical issue as radio exposure is still considered by far the most

powerful tool for marketing and promoting artists locally (CAAMA 8).

In 2015 a report of the Australia and New Zealand markets prepared by the Canadian

Association for the Advancement of Music & the Arts radio was reported to be the

dominant choice for music promotion (CAAMA 8). Interestingly Australia’s publicly funded

‘Triple J’ was noted as being a particular vehicle of interest with New Zealand’s closest

cousin the b-‐net college radio network providing similar access to the New Zealand market

albeit on a much smaller scale. In terms of consumption habits, the CAAMA suggested that

United States and United Kingdom success serves as a proxy for local tastes (CAAMA 9).

Unlike its commonwealth cousins Canada and Australia New Zealand there is no

mandatory quota of local music airplay.5 Rather, there is an agreed ‘voluntary’ quota of

20%. In 2013, 17.23% of commercial airplay was local (RBA 2013). However, with the

70% local station radio Kiwi FM dissolving it is predicted to be much lower during 2015

(Maori TV).

5 For example Triple J has a 40% local content quota.


15

B. Non-‐Label Music Funding Outside of record labels there are a number of additional private and public sources of

funding for popular musicians. The New Zealand Music Commission a private trust

supported by government funding which set up to “provide services and support to grow

the New Zealand music business” helpfully lists of these organizations and how they

support local popular music (New Zealand Music Commission, Strategic Plan 5):

-‐ Australasian Performing Right Association (APRA) (New Zealand PRO): Contribution

to economic impact research, partner for NZ Music Month, May Book contributor.

-‐ Christchurch Music Trust (CHART): Board membership of Music Commission

representative, NZ Music Month partner, ongoing seminar programme.

-‐ Creative New Zealand: Contemporary Popular Music Working Group, May Book

contributor, various seminars nationwide.

-‐ Independent Music NZ: Shared office services, Going Global Music Summit, ongoing

seminar and upskilling programme, various national networking events, May Book

contributor.

-‐ Music Managers Forum NZ: Official NZ Music Month Summit, ongoing seminar and

upskilling programme, various national networking events, May Book contributor.

-‐ Music Education Aotearoa NZ (MENZA): National songwriting competition and

performance day ‘Hook, Line & Singalong’.


16

-‐ NZ On Air: Contemporary Popular Music Working Group, NZ Music Month partner,

Official NZ Music Month Summit, various seminars nationwide, various national

networking events, May Book contributor.

-‐ Te Mangai Paho: Contemporary Popular Music Working Group.

-‐ Radio Broadcasters Association (RBA): NZ Music Month partner, NZ Music

Performance Code Committee.

-‐ Recorded Music New Zealand (RMNZ): Contribution to economic impact research,

partner for NZ Music Month, May Book contributor.

-‐ Smokefree Pacifica Beats: Bands Mentoring in Schools Programme.

-‐ Smokefree Rockquest: Bands Mentoring in Schools Programme.

Out of the list the most crucial element in defining the ambit of New Zealand on Air are the

other central public funding bodies of New Zealand popular music -‐ the New Zealand Music

Commission and Creative New Zealand. However, it should be noted that private

sponsorship is still an important source of funding for the industry and is not without

controversy. The dominance and association of alcohol sponsorship with the local music

scene is a point of contention for some local industry figures (Jorgensen 49).

The New Zealand Music Commission The New Zealand Music Commission’s mission is “to support the growth of the music

industry in New Zealand, both culturally and economically, at home and abroad” (NZ Music

Commission, About).


17

As part of this mission the New Zealand Music Commission provides ‘Outward Sound’

grants to local artists so they can travel overseas for specific music events and provides

industry research and educational support to local musicians, managers and other

participants. The following diagram from the Commission's 2014-‐2016 plan outlines the

responsibilities of the Commission, New Zealand on Air and Creative New Zealand.

Courtesy of New Zealand Music Commission Strategic Plan 4.

The New Zealand Music Commission, along with NZoA also runs New Zealand Music Month

every May.6

6 To see more about New Zealand Music Month go to nzmusicmonth.co.nz.


18

The New Zealand Music Foundation The New Zealand Music Foundation is a charitable trust established to support music

projects that assist in socially beneficial areas such as healthcare and at risk or vulnerable

communities. It also makes hardship grants to members of the music industry (NZ Music

Foundation).

Creative New Zealand Creative New Zealand’s funding of popular music is generally in the area of local and

overseas touring. Recording grants are available but specifically exclude:

-‐music videos;

-‐manufacturing and distribution costs of a recording project where these costs would

be met mainly by income from retail or online sales or from a record company;

-‐recording that contains material that has the potential to connect with a large

audience on broadcast or digital platforms, for example radio, music television, or on-‐

line (Creative New Zealand, Guide).

Exceptions also apply for ‘double-‐dipping’ applications where a project has already

received public funding, e.g. from NZoA (Creative New Zealand, Guide). There is also a

caveat that applications must specify the “proposed activities will respond to New

Zealand’s demography” (Creative New Zealand, Guide).

Since NZoA’s move from funding album tracks to single tracks there have been a number of

albums funded by Creative New Zealand that may not have been funded in the past. For


19

example, Shayne Carter who had previously received NZoA funding recently received a

Creative New Zealand ‘Quick Grant’ to complete the recording of a new album (Creative

New Zealand, Funding Round 27/7/13).

New Zealand on Air New Zealand on Air works within the confines of broadcast. Local media commentator

Russell Brown discusses how NZoA is construed as an alternative to public broadcasting:

the whole idea instead of a public broadcaster that made everything, is that you create

an agency that distributes contestable funding to all other broadcasters and that is

how you do public broadcasting ( Brown in Hoey).

NZoA is an autonomous government agency created to distribute “contestable funding” to

New Zealanders who create content intended to be broadcast predominantly on private

networks. The NZoA model is an alternative to the public broadcaster as it focuses on

fostering the creation of content and providing content for broadcasters, rather than

broadcasting exiting local content.

The background of New Zealand on Air’s formation will be discussed later. For current

purposes it is useful to discuss the specifics of NZoA’s mandate. Per section s36 of the

Broadcasting Act NZoA has a primary function to reflect and develop New Zealand identity

and culture (s36(1)(a)). The promotion of local content is further defined in s37 which

covers the funding of programmes and content for radio broadcasting which reflects New

Zealand identity and culture. Additionally, reasonable provision must be made to assist in


20

the production and broadcasting of New Zealand music (s37(d)).

In assessing funding proposals a number of matters need to be taken into account including

alternative sources of funding, the size of the audience and the extent to which the

programming caters to interests of women, youth, children and minorities (s38). In 2008

amendments were made to the Broadcasting Act to include funding programmes or content

that reached an audience online (Smyth, Skype Interview). For the purposes of this colloquy,

I will only examine New Zealand on Air’s responsibilities from a ‘music broadcast’

perspective.

There are other divisions of NZoA apart from “Making Tracks” that also promotes New

Zealand music. For example, The Digital Media Fund creates and curates the website

AudioCulture ‘The Noisy Library of New Zealand.’ AudioCulture is a digital archive site with

profiles and stories written by music journalists complete with interactive music videos

and streaming links. The website is very well designed but its focus, however, is archival

and does not involve promotion of any new content. The website seeks “to tell the stories of

nearly one hundred years of New Zealand popular music culture, from the first vinyl recording

in the 1920s to digital streaming” (Audio Culture).

Another similar (now closed) fund, the ‘Digital Partnerships Fund’, also funded the

notorious, glitch-‐ed and pointless ‘Indie Music Manager’ interactive game which was seen

by some as indicative of NZoA’s flawed and out of touch funding decisions (McClelland,

Indie Music Manager).


21

NZoA also funds ‘promotional’ platforms such as ‘The Audience’ a digital platform for

unreleased artists and all digital radio station on iHeartradio stations which plays the Top

20 local singles (NZoA, Promotion).

NzoA’s interpretation of their broadcast duty focuses on music that is likely to reach a

sizeable audience or achieve a ‘broadcast result,’ -‐ effectively funding popular music.

Chris Caddick in his influential 2010 review of NZoA’s popular music funding neatly

describes how NZoA justifies this position:

The Act established a Broadcasting Commission (NZ On Air’s legal name), which was

charged with ensuring that New Zealand identity and culture were reflected and

developed in broadcast media, making funds available for the production and

promotion of content for those media. This was intended to provide a safety net for

New Zealand content following the deregulation of the broadcasting industry in 1989

(Caddick, Domestic 40).

NZoA Music Manager Brendan Smyth explained how this legislative duty is interpreted by

the organization as a series of three historical tenants:

1. Funding of radio should have special regard for broadcasting of New Zealand music;

2. At the time, an environmental scan of what the problems was with New Zealand

music on radio. Student radio was never a problem…Commercial radio was the big

problem, and remains the biggest problem – how to get more New Zealand content on

commercial radio;


22

3. In terms of reflecting identity and culture New Zealand on Air choose an agnostic

definition of ‘NZ Music’ Music made by New Zealanders7 (Smyth, Skype Interview).

NZoA interpreted its role as supporting commercial music made by New Zealanders for a

broadcast outcome. Historically this outcome was on the radio but in modern times this

include online broadcasting. NZoA effectively operates as “the arts councils of the

airwaves” (Smyth, Skype Interview). There was no caveat about one being selected “because

it reflects NZ identity and culture more as that one sounds more American” (Smyth, Skype

Interview).

In the next chapter I will discuss the specifics grants of NZoA. The counter arguments to

NZOA’s position to support commercial pop music and the definition of New Zealand music

will also be discussed later. For the current purposes we know ‘what’ NZoA funds – the

broadcasting of New Zealand music agnostically defined. The next step is to consider why.

7 Formally defined by NZoA. See nzonair.govt.nz/document-‐library/nz-‐music-‐definition/.


23

CHAPTER 2 RATIONALES FOR THE PUBLIC FUNDING OF POPULAR MUSIC

Before discussing how popular music is funded, it’s critical to examine the theories behind

the public funding of popular music. This requires an analysis of the importance of local

culture and popular music as a component of local culture. The public funding of NZoA

presupposes a ‘dirigste’ state role. A dirigiste role implies that a state involves itself in the

cultural economy via direct intervention rather than structural support to cultural markets

(Lewis and Miller 4). For example the United States can be classified as a market system

which uses tax incentives to encourage culture creation. A dirigiste would go further by

providing extensive funding support for the creation and distribution of content.

The dirigiste role of the state in the production and distribution of culture is justified on the

theory that, without such support, certain cultural products would not exist (Lewis and

Miller 4). Such creations are “inalienably, transcendental, laden with value, but vulnerable to

the public’s inability to remain transcendental to its tastes” (Lewis and Miller 4).

The dirigiste role can then be distinguished against the market role, which uses the “market

as a system for identifying and allocating public preferences for culture” (Lewis and Miller 4).

Approaching the issue of what to protect from an interventionist approach, to the failure of

the market to deliver ‘valuable local content’ can be viewed in two ways; from a ‘lofty

approach’ or in broader terms of economic metrics (Lewis and Miller 4).


24

The ‘lofty’ justification looks to the importance of the cultural artifact being produced. In

contrast, the economic justification examines helping local popular music “to [the] market

itself, rather than treating it as a cultural artifact” (Cloonan 38).

A. Theories of The Social Importance of Culture

In the crafting of ‘cultural industries strategy’ in the United Kingdom in the 1980’s Nicholas

Garnham broken down ‘lofty justification’ into three components:

1. That culture possesses inherent values, of life enhancement or whatever, which

are fundamentally opposed to and in danger of damage by commercial forces;

2. That the need for these values is universal, uncontaminated by questions of

class, gender and ethnic origins; and

3. That the market cannot satisfy this need (Garnham 54).

These components can be easily applied to NZoA through its duty to reflect and develop

New Zealand identify and culture (the universal inherent value important to New

Zealanders) within the foreign commercially dictated music industry.

Within the context of music, this ‘lofty’ approach is akin to an “endangered species

approach to culture... it only seeks to protect those species it likes, while others are happily

consigned to extinction” (Lewis and Miller 4).

From a high culture perspective it’s easy to argue against the funding of popular music.

Popular music can be construed more easily as a produced commodity, where the music is


25

presumed to be made to be sold to a mass market. Its marketability and commercial appeal

is part of its DNA putting it outside the scope of art for state protection (Frith 34).

Over time this distinction between high and low culture in respect to music especially has

diminished. Roy Shuker demonstrates this by contrasting statements from two

consecutive former New Zealand Prime Ministers:

“In 1983, then Prime Minister Robert Muldoon, heading a National (Conservative)

administration, justified his continued rejection of arguments for a cut in the sale of

tax on records (such a tax did not apply to ‘cultural’ items like books), by claiming that

pop music could not be considered cultural, ‘I don’t think (leading local groups) Split

Endz and Mi-‐Sex are cultural.’…..In contrast to this, in 1986 Labour Prime Minister

David Lange’s objections to the Government being ‘the inevitable funder’ of the New

Zealand Symphony Orchestra aroused considerable controversy. Mr Lange said he had

nothing against what he was sure was an ‘extra ordinarily competent’ group of

musicians, but the example of the orchestra as a socially worthy purpose did not

inspire him to reach for his cheque book” (Shuker, 2001 254).

Lange also mused that he happened “to like Dire Straits more than Debussy” (Shuker, 2001

254).

Accepting popular music as socially worthy we need to go further and explore the specifics

of the social utility of popular music. To judge how ‘good’ a given pop song is Simon Frith

has constructed three social functions of popular music which can be used to value a given


26

popular music work (Frith 38). Frith’s first social function is the creation of identity and

that “we use pop songs to create for ourselves a particular sort of self-‐definition, a particular

place in society” (Frith 38). Both performers and fans can create a sense of their own

identity by simultaneously associating and distinguishing themselves from other

performers or fans. Frith cites several examples, including the resurgence of Irish Music in

pubs in London not only as an expression of national identity but as a social function

“capable of creating… [a] sort of spontaneous collective identity” (Frith 38).

Frith’s second function of popular music is the management of feelings and how pop songs

provide “a way of managing the relationship between our public and private emotional lives”

(Frith 39). Frith postulates that it is not a coincidence that the majority of pop songs are

love songs. Rather this is a result of a social function. Social and logistic formalities, and

limitations of everyday conversation, limit how effectively we can express our emotions:

Because people need them to give shape and voice to emotions that otherwise cannot

be expressed without embarrassment or incoherence. Love songs are a way of giving

emotional intensity to the sorts of intimate things we say to each other (and to

ourselves) in words that are, in themselves, quite flat. It is a peculiarity of everyday

language that our most fraught and revealing declarations of feelings have to use

phrases – ‘I love/hate you’, ‘Help me!’, ‘I’m angry/sacred’ – which are boring and

banal; and so our culture has a supply of a million pop songs, which say these things

for us in numerous interesting and involving ways (Frith 40).


27

The authors and singers of these songs do not step in to express these emotions, nor does

the listener transform into them, but rather songs “make our feelings seem richer and more

convincing than we can make them in our own words, even to ourselves” (Frith 40).

Frith’s third and final social function is more nebulous. It concerns popular music’s power

to ‘stop time’ and create nostalgia in a manner which “intensif[ies] our experience of the

present” (Frith 40). This function is difficult to explain and subjective by nature as different

songs will ‘stop time’ for different people. For John Landau, for example, it was Bruce

Springsteen. On first seeing Springsteen perform in 1975 he appointed Springsteen as “the

future of rock n roll” and described the power of pop music:

in my own moments of greatest need, I never give up the search for sounds that can

answer every impulse, consume all emotion, cleanse and purify — all things that we

have no right to expect from even the greatest works of art but which we can

occasionally derive from them” (Landau).

On a personal note I was consumed by local music with this ‘stop time’ power growing up,

when listening to the exhilarating ‘Life in One Chord’ by Straitjacket Fits or routinely seeing

the Mint Chicks at Auckland’s dingy King’s Arms.

This ‘presence’, which pop can possess is both physical and meta-‐physical. Firth discusses

the use of beat, pulse and rhythm to compel our immediate bodily involvement in an

organization of time that the music itself controls (Frith 40). The live performance, dance


28

festivals and clubs are formed to foster this power. These experiences are typically in one’s

youth and create nostalgic memories

Frith concludes that these social functions of music are a routine part of our lives so much

so that “we make it part of our own identity and build it into our sense of ourselves” (Frith

40). Popular music fosters a type of “self cognition,” allowing us to live outside the moment

and is something we both possess and are possessed by (Frith 42). From a holistic point of

view this power of identification and possession can be experienced on a nation level.

David Bell and Kate Oakley discuss how the power of culture generally permits a defined

community to imagine and craft identities:

Exploring the histories of nation-‐building and national identity, commentators have

often singled out various forms of culture as a kind of glue that binds a nation, that

defines its ‘nation-‐ness.’ A key concept here is the nation as an imagined community

(Anderson 1991), and the steering of the imaginative work of making a nation cohere

and self-‐identify is often down to culture. Historians remind us that nations are

‘fictions’, so it should come as no surprise to see cultural production and consumption

centrally implicated in the storying of the nation, providing the core narrative around

which national identity can coalesce (Bell 113).

Given culture’s role in providing imaginative resources and in facilitating forms of ‘identity-‐

work’, we can see how forms of culture-‐as-‐display might work to bond members of an


29

imagined nation (Bell 113). Popular music and its social functions mentioned are a super

solvent to follow their metaphor.


30

B. Economic Justifications

Public support of popular music is not only justifiable from a cultural perspective, but also

from an economic perspective; popular music makes money and can be a valuable export

for a given nation.

The given ‘return’ for public investment can either be direct in terms of job or revenue

creation for local ‘cultural industries’, or as a form of marketing boasting a country’s profile

– in particular to boost tourism. An example from New Zealand are tax incentives given to

film producers with the Lord of the Rings movies filmed in New Zealand. The tax incentives

were justified both in terms of job creation and ‘international exposure’ (Pinchefsky).

Cultural industries are seen as a way to diversify a national industry making it less reliant

on dominant local industries. In the United Kingdom the financial success of popular music

relative to other financial forces of other types of funded arts meant that cultural funding

could be viewed as not only a cultural asset but also as an “economic driver” (Cloonan 38).

This imparts a different role on the state providing support to popular music “in terms of

helping it to market itself, rather than treating it as a cultural artifact” (Cloonan 38).

Economic drivers, as demonstrated by Lord of the Rings in New Zealand can be direct in

terms of job creation and local spending, or more indirect avenues such as increased

tourism or greater international awareness of the local creative industry.

In abstract, these justifications for funding popular music might seem to clash. Popular

music’s inherent commercial genesis blurs these justifications together so much so that


31

ignoring them would be futile. Popular music funding needs to be market aligned. As

David Bell and Kate Oakley put it “If cultural policy was to retain any legitimacy, it needed to

find ways of intervening ‘in and through the market…’ this type of culture is commercial

culture’” (Bell and Oakley 24). Isolating these justifications is useful, however, in assessing

whether a given nation’s popular music funding policy achieves its objectives.

Furthermore, these objectives will change for the given context of the nation, as Bell and

Oakley extrapolate “[t]o understand national cultural policy, we need to understand the

nation whose culture is being made a policy-‐target” (Bell and Oakley 25). The focus of our

attention, therefore, is specifically the justification for public funding of popular music in

New Zealand.


32

CHAPTER 3: NEW ZEALAND ON AIR’S DUTY TO REFLECT AND DEVELOP NEW ZEALAND IDENTITY AND CULTURE

The public funding of popular music in New Zealand was typically shaped by the policy of

various New Zealand Labour governments. Michael Scott of the University of Auckland

studied the political motivation of these policies presenting a picture mixed with both

economic and lofty motivations. The manner in which this support is provided is influenced

by a practice of neo-‐liberal intervention that “a state… would partner, enable and facilitate

popular music-‐makers into existing market institutions” (Scott 144). The philosophy is to

work within:

the grain of music industry practices. Therefore, state organizations became another

player in the domestic music market by interceding in artist-‐market relations in ways

isomporhic to existing private sector practices (Scott 144).

This background is important in context, although the political motivations of NZoA and

other music funds were justified in both economic and lofty terms:

Labour’s music policy was persistently couched in the endemic state concerns of

diversifying the nation’s industrial base and generating new employment

opportunities in this small, isolated economy. Such concerns were particularly

pressing in the wake of the social and economic fragmentation induced by the vigorous

application of neo-‐liberal doctrine. Popular music was thus mobilized to address job

creation and social inclusion (especially for young people), domestic industry


33

construction, the generation of export opportunities and the fostering of sentiments of

national identity (Scott 143).

It is not only the explicit motivations of rationale for funding that influence what music is

publicly funded, but also the music industry in which it created. As illustrated in Chapter

One, New Zealand artists compared to international artists are at a disadvantage. Roy

Shuker, in examining music policy, globalization and national identity discussed how the

‘one hit funds many flops’ economics of the recording industry influence how popular

music can be effectively supported by the state. In most cases this is a matter of resolving

access, which further morphs the line between lofty and economic rationales behind

funding: “major record companies look for acts that are already partially developed and

indicated commercial potential, especially in the international market…” (Shuker, 2008 210).

However with major record companies based the United Kingdom and United States, this

generally means content originating and developed ‘closer to home’ in those locations.

This makes it particularly more difficult for New Zealand artists to be developed as popular

artists and, as a result

[a]ttempts at the national level to foster local popular music production are primarily

interventions at the level of the distribution and reception of the music. They attempt

to secure greater access to the market, particularly for local products in the face of

overseas music, notably from the United Kingdom and United States (Shuker, 2008

210).


34

As Matt Mollgaard told me in an interview, NZoA funding has an undeclared but accepted

role to “promote and prop up the music industry in New Zealand” (Mollgaard, Skype

Interview).


35

A. Cultural Imperialism

As well as market intervention another common rationale for such funding in New Zealand

is the concept of Cultural Imperialism. Examining the cultural imperialism thesis is not only

important in establishing why successive New Zealand governments have chosen to fund

popular music, but it is also important in how it influences the practices and regulations of

NZoA, and ultimately the music that NZoA funds.

Cultural Imperialism is a concept of cultural subordination; the repression of local cultural

expression is “dominated and to varying degrees invaded, displaced and challenged by

imported foreign cultures, often western, cultures” (O’Sullivan in Shuker, 2001 255).

The concept is rooted in the colonization in the nineteenth century. It goes deeper than

importation of cultural expression but also to the “transmission of certain products, fashions

and styles from the dominant nations” which “lead to the creation of particular patterns of

demand and consumption which are underpinned by and endorse, the cultural values, ideals

and practices of their dominant origins” (O’Sullivan in Shuker, 2001 255).

Conceived as a form of dominant influence cultural imperialism taints a particular

country’s indigenous creative impulses. As Shuker observes, cultural imperialism implies a

distinction between local and imported culture, the former being “somehow more authentic,

traditional and supportive of a conception of a distinctive cultural identity” (Shuker, 2001

255).


36

B. What Constitutes Local Music? The formation of NZoA was a result of a more substantial policy change. Under what was

termed ‘Rogernomics’ (after its creator, and Finance Minister, Roger Douglas) New

Zealand’s Labour government of 1983 embraced open market neoliberal policies which

included deregulating how the government could control broadcasting markets. NZoA, in

the words of CEO Brendan Smyth, was a “safety net to prevent cultural imperialism” (Smyth,

Skype Interview).

The creation of a quasi government body to fund local content was a method of

government involvement to endorse the value of local content without directly intervening

in the market, of example by establishing a mandatory local quota on radio broadcasters.8

In the context of a given country policies looking to address cultural imperialism need to

answer two questions. Firstly, how does one identify a certain creation as ‘local’? Secondly

considering the prominence of dominant countries such as the United States and the United

Kingdom in shaping modern popular music how can one distinguish between local and

foreign sound?

8 Although a voluntary quota was established by 2002 see Joyce.


37

The concern of cultural imperialism was particularly strong around the time of the

formation of NZoA. For example, Geoff Lealand’s cleverly named A Foreign Egg In Our Nest?

– American Popular Culture in New Zealand published in 1988 articulates the concern over

the dominance of foreign, particularly American, culture in New Zealand. Lealand observes

the general sense of how American culture has spread into modern life in New Zealand, and

in effect was ‘colonizing our sub-‐conscious’ (Lealand 18). Lealand observed that most New

Zealand record labels where “subsidiaries of overseas conglomerates” that were profit

incentivized to promote foreign rather than local content (Lealand 60). Additionally

foreign content was relatable enough to New Zealander’s “common enough to share” but

still undoubtedly foreign in its sound and themes. Lealand concluded accordingly that New

Zealand music was inherently derivative (Lealand 60).

Lealand’s examples illustrate the lack of New Zealand specific references and accents.

While Lealand’s analysis is somewhat useful, he hints at a concept which more accurately

explains New Zealand popular music and its international influence – hybridity.

Cultural imperialism has been criticized for its lack of subtlety (Kraidy 29). Kraidy posits

that Cultural Imperialism relies on an assumption of vulnerability and passive media

consumption (Kraidy 34). The effects of globalization, including the importation of foreign

cultures, are “experienced locally” and consumed in different, though not only passive,

manners (Kraidy 42). Furthermore, Kraidy raises the hybridity theory of culture as it

relates to the spread of culture globally:


38

that traces of other cultures exist in every culture, thus offering foreign media and

markets transcultural wedges for forgoing affective links between their communities

local communities. As a discourse of intercultural relations, hybridity conjures up an

active exchange that leads to the mutual transformation of both sides… Hybridity,

then, is not just amenable to globalization. It is the cultural logic of globalization”

(Kraidy 148).

Kraidy provides a useful table summarizing ways of interpreting cross-‐cultural

interactions. The practical applications of these theories are helpful as they guide the

discussion of what constitutes local music.


39

( Courtesy of Kraidy at 150)

For the purpose of my analysis of the local I have taken a ‘transcultural’ perspective

adopted by Zita Joyce and NZoA (Joyce, Hearing Ourselves 35). The transcultural

perspective has enough nuances to adapt to the structural and social realities of how the

New Zealand music operates as “an appendage” of the global music business (Rielly 96).

Brendan Rielly’s thesis on the Anglo-‐American influence on New Zealand describes how

this nuanced perceptive is preferable to that of hybridity. Rielly discusses Hip Hop as a


40

paramount example of hybridity, a genre with multiple cultural influences which ironically

now is the most cited example of US imitation. But this

does not take into account is the active role of producers and consumers in their

identification with foreign culture. This on-‐going process of creating your own

cultural identity by merging and morphing with overseas influence points to a mixture

and blend of hybridity (Rielly 122).

Rielly concludes hybridity is a useful though imperfect fit. Whether it be the raps of David

Dallas, or Upper Hutt Posse (a rap group which used indigenous language) both are

undoubtedly a New Zealand hybrid hip hop form. Yet, while hybridity is a useful

explanation, there is a dilemma whether new hybridity is cultural adaptation or a

manifestation of dominance of foreign media and media owners (Rielly 127). The influence

of a foreign format, industry strength and access to production means:

New Zealand artists create music, write lyrics and sing in their own accents, but it is

done under an international framework of production standards and fitting into

tightly defined radio formats. Very few success stories operate outside of this arena.

What some critics are suggesting is that the hybrid music forms are more aligned with

global modes of thought rather than reflecting local stories and experiences. This is

precisely one of the problems with the concept of hybridity (Reilly 299).


41

Globalization and deregulation, especially in the radio sector has meant that the means of

production and distribution are still dominantly foreign. Even local artists are not immune

to this influence:

The result is a homogenisation of content that is geographically difficult to pinpoint

due to its global themes and similarity of styles and accents. The outcome is more

global impersonation than local inspiration (Reilly 299).

The difficulty of an agnostic, hybrid definition of New Zealand music is that these cultural

flows, especially for radio broadcast outcomes, are dominated by foreign owned means of

production. Zita Joyce puts the colonization concept bluntly: “New Zealand is now far less

isolated in terms of reception of cultural products, the local music industry is still very much a

colony of the global industry in terms of production” (Joyce, Hearing Ourselves 36).


42

C. New Zealand Music and National Identity The final piece in the puzzle is to consider why local music is valuable. As discussed above,

if New Zealand popular music is construed as a transcultural musical form operating within

the larger context of the global market can it really be claimed that local music is any

different or has distinctive cultural value which requires protection. Roy Shuker postulates

the issues as follows:

the cultural imperialism thesis is predicated on accepting the ‘national’ as a given,

with distinctive national musical identities its logical corollary. However the

globalization of Western capitalism, particularly evident in its media conglomerates,

and the increasing international nature of Western popular music brings these notions

into question (Shuker, 2008 209).

Shuker then outlines two factors demonstrating that “the global and local cannot be

considered binary categories:”

1. Popular music culture is established as the “international preferred culture of the

young” with American rock and roll in particular formed “as a means to distance

themselves from a parental ‘national culture;’”

2. Local and production and national identity are not directly correlated, and local

product is often hard to distinguish from foreign content (Shuker, 2008 209).

As Shuker demonstrates Globalization is used to posit the threat of cultural imperialism as

well mitigating the same threat.


43

Geoff Lealand, referring to the lack of local accents and local references puts the case

stronger saying “that poplar music is now an international language, but still largely in an

American tongue (Lealand 76).”

Dr Graham Downes, a Senior Lecturer at the University of Otago and front man of the well

known New Zealand indie band The Verlaines muses on his experience with the

“commonalities” of “New Zealandeness” including a Maori world-‐view,9 isolation and

connectivity to the land as a musician. Although Downes, talks about the difficulty of using

such national signpost in his music and other local Pakeha10 popular music:

As a Pakeha New Zealander, I could never feel comfortable doing what Dave Dobbyn

has done in tidily co-‐opting Maori culture into a sentimental rock video. I can’t

reconcile it with history, or with Once Were Warriors… And for me this is the New

Zealand condition, stuck between an indigenous culture that, whilst I am keenly

interested in its renaissance and political evolution, I feel excluded from. It’s like being

Jewish: if your mother wasn’t, you can’t be. That, and the feeling homesickness for a

country that doesn’t exist, is the unity truth of the Pakeha reality as I see it (Downes in

Johnson 166).

That is not to say that popular music coming from New Zealand is not unique. New Zealand

music does achieve a degree of international successes both critically and commercially.

For example the success of pop singer/songwriter Lorde suggests that the unique

9 Maori are the indigenous people of New Zealand. 10 A New Zealander of European decent.


44

perspective, culture and somewhat still isolated place in the world is provides the broth as

a very interesting musical soup.

Rather than looking for specific language or styles in local popular music the important

features of New Zealand music can be postulated through Firth’s three functions of popular

music discussed in Chapter One.

Popular music can help foster the created identity of a nation fictional or otherwise. Frith’s

examples of Irish identity in the Irish music of pubs of London is also applicable to New

Zealand. Prominent musical hits especially in the case of New Zealand where they

commonly revolve around sporting campaigns can construct ideals of national identity.

Songs such as ‘Poi E’ by the Patea Maori Club11, or ‘Don’t Dream It’s Over’ by Crowded

House12 arguably serve this role for a large number of New Zealanders.

The second idea of that popular music local music can better manage feelings to ‘manage

the relations between public and private’ emotional levels is not as persuasive. While local

music, undoubtedly fulfills this there is no reason why specifically local music fulfills this

better than popular music.

Frith’s third utility is more helpful. As discussed in Chapter One popular music has a

particular presence which commands listening to dance, feel nostalgic and ‘live outside the

moment.’ While international touring and music facilitates this, a thriving local music 11‘Poi E’ music video available at www.nzonscreen.com/title/poi-‐e-‐1983. 12‘Don’t Dream It’s Over’ music video available at www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9gKyRmic20.


45

scene arguably fulfills this utility with a greater strength. For me it was the chance to see

incredible local bands in Auckland, such as The Mint Chicks, Die! Die! Die! And Surf City

that gave me a passion and inspiration to get involved in music.

Providing public support to local popular music whether through broadcast or other

funding gives a mechanism for this music to be heard. The funding question is really one of

‘securing greater access’ at the bottom line of funding. The social utility is also provided to

those that perform this music. Most musicians I talked to mentioned the ‘Smoke Free Rock

Request’ a high school talent competition as being an important step to their involvement

in music simply as it provided a platform and motivation to form and stick with music.

How New Zealander’s enjoy local music or how it shapes imagined national identity are

pivotal motivations. As the rhetoric of the Labor Party in 1999 stated “[t[his access to other

cultures has highlighted the importance of a strong sense of place and cultural identity”

(Joyce, Hearing Ourselves 24).

Going forward in examining how well NZoA achieves its mandate it is necessary to create a

model which focuses on fostering music with such social utility.


46

D. New Zealand Music and the ‘Cultural Cringe’ An informal but often discussed cultural ill that NZoA’s funding addresses is the so-‐called

New Zealand ‘cultural cringe.’ Simply put New Zealand content was historically and

arguably still is considered inherently in-‐superior to foreign music making local content

and hence ‘cringe worthy.’ In the NZoA space, one of the resistance of radio programmers

choosing not to play local content was because it is “simply not as good as overseas

product, and that audience do not want to listen to it” (Joyce, Hearing Ourselves 3). The

‘godfather’ of New Zealand, DIY music, Chris Knox once described the situation as “The

New Zealand music industry gets its product overseas, ‘Cos it can’t believe it’s quality till it

gets US release” (Knox).

Knox plays on the industry tendency to feel that local music was never seen as of any merit

until it received overseas recognition a feat few New Zealanders achieved. Rather than

being attributed to the difficulties of isolation and music industry access, this lack of

success was correlated with quality. Up to modern times New Zealand accents were

seldom heard on popular recordings (Lealand 76).

Interestingly enough NZoA itself has been associated with cultural cringe. The most

notable New Zealand music export, Ella Yelich-‐O’Connor (better known as ‘Lorde’)

deliberately turned down NZoA music video funding, early in her career noting the

negative association that the NZoA logo had to people of her age (5000 Ways To Love You).


47

Presumably, this negative association came from the type of music that NZoA typically

funded, indeed O’Connor in the same interview took a dig at the her producers Joel Little’s

former lightweight pop punk band ‘Goodnight Nurse,’ who received numerous NZoA grants

(5000 Ways to Love You) – “Because he was in Goodnight Nurse, he can’t try to be cool.”

Cultural cringe, is an unspecified yet critical cultural issue to be addressed. The funding of

popular music content has the power, and arguably has already mitigated these concerns.

As New Zealand singer songwriter Don McGlashon states:

As more music is written here, and as more New Zealanders grow up with a locally

made soundtrack to their lives, many of these question about how to situate music in

this place will become redundant. In the time I’ve been making music in this country,

many once-‐contentious issues have been put aside, or replaced with new ones. For

example, to sing in a New Zealand accent used to indicate a desire to satirise (Peter

Cape, John Clarke). Now when Martin Philips of The Chills, Robert Scott of the Bats, or

Kody Nielson of The Mint Chicks use their own vowels, they don’t lose any authority

(McGlashon in Keam 281).


48

CHAPTER 4 THE MUSIC FUNDING POLICIES OF NEW ZEALAND ON AIR

A. THE FORMATION AND OPERATION OF NZoA

This section examines scope, objectives and operations of NZoA’s music polices up to the

launch of the “Making Tracks” funding model in July 2011. The history of NZoA’s music

funding can be characterized in five phases. Each of these five phases is discussed below.

Phase One – The Pilot (1991-‐1993) NZoA in its pilot phase was focused upon what was considered the major issue for local

music -‐ access to commercial radio. Studies at the time, while not official until 1994,

showed that commercial radio -‐ representative of 80% of radio’s audience played around

2% local music (Norris 129-‐130). In Phase One the following where funded:

-‐Radio programmes about New Zealand music for broadcast on New Zealand radio

stations;

-‐Music videos (up to $5000 per video) (Norris 129).

In total 14 programs and 56 videos where funded for a cost of $300,000 and $280,000

respectively. Both were seen as ‘cost effective’ mechanisms to expose New Zealand music

through private broadcast networks (Norris 129).


49

Phase Two – Arrival of the Kiwi Hit Disc (1993-‐1996) Phase Two attempted to remedy the fact that local music still wasn’t making into

commercial playlists (Norris 129). To get around this, NZoA looked to create a two-‐

monthly ‘Kiwi Hit Disc’ sent to commercial programmers with local tracks that could be

‘auditioned’ for commercial radio (Norris 130). The process of selecting these tracks was

“somewhat ad hoc…[t]he call went out to record companies to offer their current music and

NZ On Air would tout these around a range of radio programmers seeking approval or

disapproval of each track” (Norris 130). Later tracks were chosen by NZ on Air solely

(Norris 130).

At this stage funding “operated retrospectively.” If a song from the ‘Kiwi Hit Disc’ made it to

radio the record company behind the song would be given $5,000 per song. This “reward-‐

oriented funding scheme” meant that NZoA began to function as a type of quasi record

company promoting and marketing selected local content (Norris 130).

Phase Three – Radio Pluggers (1996 – 1999) Phase Three dealt with the next hurdle “getting the songs off the disc and onto the playlist”

(Norris 130). A radio plugger was hired to lobby commercial programmers to play NZoA

content. A further two discs, ‘Kiwi Gold Disc’ and ‘Kiwi Indie Disc’ were also created so that

the NZoA plugger focused on convincing commercial programmers that certain local tracks

fitted the stations particular demographic (Norris 131).


50

At the same time, music videos were an essential part of music marketing with two specific

new music television channels, Max and Cry TV further boasting broadcasting numbers

(Norris 131).

In 1997 the ‘Kiwi Music Action Group’ was formed between NZoA and industry bodies

focusing on promoting with NZoA’s objectives of greater airplay for local artists. One of the

groups first initiatives was the launch of ‘New Zealand Music Week’ (Norris 131).

Phase Four – Making and Marketing (1999-‐2005) 1999 saw the election of Helen Clark’s Labor government, who had an extensive focus on

developing national identity and the creative industries (Scott 1). NZoA’s budget was

significantly increased (Norris 132). There were five significant changes. First, for the first

time, international exposure was made an explicit goal of NZOA who provided international

marketing grants of $50,000 for record companies who promoted local artists up to this

$50,000 amount internationally. These grants were available for up to four albums each

year per record company (Norris 132). The second change was substantial and due to its

size and selection one of the most controversial -‐ NZoA provided matching $50,000 grants

for the recording of 12 or more albums per year (Norris 132). Additionally a ‘new

recording fund’ was established to give out $5,000 grants to up to 40 new recording artists

(Norris 132). The final change was investments in music television stations, M2 and C4

(Norris 133). In 2002 the government successfully agreed with the Radio Broadcasters

Association to establish a voluntary local radio quota of 20%.


51

Phase Five -‐ International Awareness (2005-‐2011) Phase Five further extended NZoA’s international focus. The New Zealand Music

Commission was given extra funding of $5.4 million for a four year international campaign.

Funding would be utilized by creating NZ music CD samplers, forming ‘tastemaker’

networks with international music business people, acquiring advertising spaces in trade

magazines, international radio showcases and contracting of “agents in the target territories

to service the samplers and maintain the tastemaker networks” (Norris 135).

At this stage NZoA’s objectives had shifted significantly from its original mandate to get

more local music on commercial radio. At this point NZoA was now a significant content

creator of both music videos albums and tracks, a local and international promoter as well

as providing broadcast support both on television and radio. This evolution was even

subject to a legal questioning to determine whether it was within the scope of NZoA’s

parent legislation – the Broadcasting Act (Norris 136). Although, NZoA had significantly

increased the amount of local content on commercial radio from roughly 2% in 1991 to

20% in 2011 the new scope of funded music by NZoA were the subject of severe criticism.

This criticism eventually resulted in further evolution for NZoA, establishing the current

“Making Tracks” funding model.


52

B. NZoA MAKING TRACKS

Notable Criticisms Throughout NZoA’s operation and most significantly in Phases 4 and 5, NZoA was publicly

criticized by a number of interested parties. A selection of such criticism is considered

below to illustrate their influence on Caddick report which reviewed NZoA’s policy and was

pivotal in the creation of “Making Tracks.” Each criticism is considered in more detail in

Chapter Five.

One of the most high profile critiques was a lengthy article in local music magazine Real

Groove. Duncan Grieve’s feature examined NZoA in detail and included comments from

high profile local musicians. Grieve’s piece expressed the general sentiment that NZoA had

a tendency to repeatedly fund a number of local acts which were ‘pale imitations’ of

overseas rock bands. These bands most notably the much derided ‘Autozamm’ often

received consecutive large grants without any justification either commercially or critically

(Grieve, Follow the Money 18). The concern was that NZoA was spending millions of dollars

of public money supporting music that wasn’t commercially or critically successful and had

no “emotional attachment” to New Zealanders (Grieve, Skype Interview). NZoA was

criticized for its strong ties to commercial radio as well as a failure to adapt to the digital

reality of the modern music industry. Grieve’s ‘tax payer cost per unit’ CD graph illustrated

how ineffective the model was commercially, showing the funded cost per unit of funded

album relative to the total number of units sold (Grieve, Follow the Money 18).


53


54

Courtesy of Grieve, Follow the Money 18.

Grieve spoke to Mike Bradshaw the manager of one of New Zealand’s most well-‐known

musical exports Crowded House. Bradshaw considered the program a complete failure.

For an investment of around $60 million dollars over the course of the operations, only 3-‐

5% of funded artists ever got sales of gold or better (7000 units in New Zealand) or had any

significant overseas success (Grieve, Follow the Money 16-‐17).

Also in 2010 the Sounds Like Us organization was founded by Rob Mayes of independent

label Failsafe Records. Sounds Like Us gathered opinions of various industry insiders and

published a paper and campaign on the problems with NZoA’s policies. Again, these

criticisms focused upon the commercial focus of NZoA and its self-‐created mandate “to

establish an industry in which musicians can earn a living” a perceived departure from its

statutory role to reflect local identity and culture. (Mayes, Sounds Like Us 2).

Mayes also focused on a number of smaller criticism which are discussed later, but thrust

of his point was represented in a quote from musician Ian Henderson who mused that

“NZOA’s philosophy in only funding music that will get commercial airplay is akin to an

organization set up to promote NZ cuisine, that will only support items McDonald’s would put

on their menu” (Henderson in Mayes, Sounds Like Us at 4).


55

A general distaste for the type and quality of music being funded was further exasperated

by a number of certain events, no more so than the ‘Annabel Fay fiasco’. Annabel Fay is the

daughter of one of New Zealand’s wealthiest men Sir Michael Fay. Annabel Fay was given

around $70,000 in album funding from NZoA. A number of radio programmers as well the

head of NZoA Brendan Smyth, were helicoptered courtesy of the Fey family to a lavish

party on Great Mercury Island, which Sir Michael Fay part owns to celebrate the album

release (Sweetman 2010). The story received a lot of coverage and along with other

questionable decisions such as the funding of the Indie Music Manger game is still fresh in

the mind of many of critics of NZoA I spoke to.

At this time, previous to the “Making Tracks” reform there was a large proportion of the

New Zealand music industry and public with negative impressions of NZoA’s music

funding. A large amount of the music it funded was perceived as inconsequential

commercial radio music with no cultural appeal and since it was so generic, unlikely to

make any significant impact overseas. In contrast local music which were critically

respected such as Tourettes or had built up a ground swell of community support such as

Home Brew or had international success due to their points of difference such as The

Datsuns went unfunded (See Grieve and Mayes generally).

Although, there seems a significant belief in the value of funding, especially for the isolated

and small New Zealand music market the relatively large amounts of lack of success either

economically or culturally was alarming. New Zealand musical success has usually came in

a do-‐it-‐yourself manner and against the odds:


56

The middle ground between those two agencies (NZoA and Creative New Zealand) is

where 95 per cent of the Flying Nun back catalogue sits, where most of Split Enz’s

albums make their home, where internationally adored artists like The Ruby Suns and

Lawrence Arabia are found. In short, it’s where much of what we treasure most deeply

about New Zealand music exists, yet the funding body charged with fostering this

music is unable to reach across to it. Or, to put it less charitably, NZ On Air has

proven itself singularly incapable of trying (Grieve, Follow the Money 22).

The Caddick Report In response to this criticism NZoA commissioned former EMI executive Chris Caddick to

conduct two reviews of NZoA’s music funding model. The first review published in

December 2009 focused on NZoA’s expansion into international music support, with the

second domestic review coming out in December 2010.

The domestic report had significant input from industry insiders and the public, with

Caddick interviewing over 100 people as well as reigning insight from 655 answered online

questionnaires (Norris 138).

The 150 plus page report was a comprehensive review of NZoA’s domestic operations and

well as the perceptions of its role and success. Caddick acknowledged that particularly in

commercial radio exposure NZoA had been relatively successful, with “an industry

infrastructure has been strengthened and an ever-‐increasing pool of new artists aspires to

create music and have it heard by their fellow countrymen” (Caddick, Domestic 4).


57

Yet Caddick heard similar concerns to those expressed above, especially as the models

appeared to venture further from NZoA’s broadcasting mandate (Caddick, Domestic 4).

Caddick summarized these main concerns as (Caddick, Domestic 5-‐6):

• Lagging behind a changing music industry;

• An overly commercial focus;

• An inappropriate number of repeated fundees;

• A lack of auditing, follow up and monitoring of broadcast results;

• NZoA artificially ‘propping up’ the local music industry and;

• A lack of promotion of content once created.

Caddick noted a number of specific recommendations which are available in the appendix

of the report. These recommendations were built around three “over-‐arching goals:”

(Caddick, Domestic 6-‐7)

1. Create a new funding scheme to promote diversity and encourage new artists:

-‐Pool funding from the three existing funding schemes (albums, singles, videos) into one new track-‐based scheme. -‐ Establish a selection process that caters to a broader spectrum of broadcast media. -‐Provide greater assistance for newer artists compared to established artists within the scheme.

-‐Limit the amount of funding available to individual artists on an annual basis.

-‐Require a funding contribution and recoupment from repeat applicants.


58

2. Initiate new promotional programmes and modify existing ones to provide better connection with audiences: -‐Establish a new media role and online/mobile promotional programme.

-‐Move to digital delivery of tracks whilst retaining the option of a physical Kiwi Hit Disc. -‐Use funding for longer form radio and television programming more efficiently. -‐Set goals for continuous improvement in broadcast percentages and improve monitoring of outcomes. -‐Encourage mainstream television networks to provide better exposure for New Zealand music.

3. Promote professionalism in the greater industry with both internal and external initiatives:

-‐ Improve application and audit procedures for funding. -‐ Improve communication with stakeholders. -‐ Strengthen interaction with other Government agencies.

-‐ Establish a regular programme for future reviews. -‐ Encourage industry action to quantify value of music to New Zealand economy.

The majority of Caddick’s criticism revolved around album funding. Caddick thought the

existing album model lacked artist diversity and was out of touch with a singles music

industry, in particular radio programmers (Caddick, Domestic 79). Videos, and the new

recording programs were seen as useful, but in essentially conceiving the Making Track’s

funding model Caddick stated:


59

Many of the problems created by these schemes can, I believe, be solved by rolling all

three schemes into one, creating a single track–based scheme (Caddick, Domestic 79).

Caddick also suggested a monthly panel system, featuring a broader spectrum of industry

participants, (e.g. not just radio programmers) involved in the artist selection process

(Caddick, Domestic 80).

In terms of domestic goals, Caddick considered that NZoA was still charting an appropriate

course and thought his suggestions could help NZoA achieve these more effectively

particularly in creating more diversity in artists funded (Caddick, Domestic 80).

Caddick’s report on NZoA’s Phase 5 funding of its international programmes was similarly

comprehensive. Caddick considered the international scope justified due to the necessity

for international success for any local artist to be sustainable (Caddick, Domestic 10). Non

financial benefits of “the aspirational effect” and “cultural pride” of artists such as Flight of

The Conchords and Ladyhawke was also noted (Caddick, Domestic 12). Caddick noted that

Australian was an obvious target for such expansion and work should be done to foster

closely industry relationships among other specific recommendation (Caddick, Domestic

33).


60

The Making Tracks Model In July 2011 the newly formed “Making Tracks” funding model replaced the existing, new

recording, album funding and music video funding programmes. “Making Tracks” was

formed in direct response to the Caddick report and criticism above. When I spoke to NZoA

Music Manager Brendan Smyth he noted a number factors behind the change. In terms of

scope in 2008 the Broadcasting Act was amended to include ‘online broadcasting,’

effectively permitting funding to target an online audience for example YouTube views for

a music video (Smyth, Skype Interview). Smyth noted that three particular factors which

together formed the inspiration of the new model. First was that getting on commercial

radio was no longer the dominant issue for local artists. Second, the digital music

revolution had changed the marketplace dramatically. Finally, Smyth mentioned the dis-‐

affection of the local music scene with the commercial focus of NZoA grants, and it was felt

that funding should be spread out wider (Smyth, Skype Interview).

The “Making Tracks” model is a radical departure from prior funding models. Funding

grants were more plentiful, albeit at much lower amounts and spread amongst more

applicants. In March 2011 the ‘album’ and ‘new recording schemes’ were annulled as well

as two contract pluggers being replaced with a ‘broadcast promotions executive’ and

‘repertoire executive.’ (NZoA, Making Tracks). A digital music strategist was also hired on a

one year contract (NZoA, Making Tracks).

A summary of the attributes the “Making Tracks” funding model are as follows:


61

• How Much? -‐ $10,000 maximum per song. $4,000 for recording ‘unfinished

tracks’ and $6,000 to create a music video for that song. The artists must

contribute at lest $2,000 towards a video grant (New Zealand on Air, Making

Tracks 4-‐6).

• How Many? – “Making Tracks” would aim to fund at least 200 tracks and videos.

Previously 50 tracks and 170 videos would be funded. 60% of these tracks

would be targeted to commercial radio while 40% would be aimed at

“alternative and online platforms, including projects with the potential to

infiltrate the mainstream” (New Zealand on Air, Making Tracks 4).

• When? – Making Track grants would be made monthly (New Zealand on Air,

Making Tracks 4).

• Who Decides? – Rather than consulting with commercial programmers, funding

decisions would be made by a panel of at least three broadcasters and three

music experts. Each month, NZoA would select this panel. Broadcast members

are chosen from commercial and alternative radio and music television. The

music experts would be selected from a pool of music critics, industry

professionals and bloggers.

The choice of how much to allocate and the quantity of grants was based around a new

desire for diversity. The ‘single song’ overhaul was based on the way people consume

music in the digital age, typically in single song form or through video streaming platforms,

most notably YouTube. Only unreleased songs are eligible for funding (New Zealand on Air,


62

Making Tracks 5). There was also a per album limit, a maximum of 3 tracks and videos

from a given album were eligible (New Zealand on Air, Making Tracks 2)

The commercial alternative split was a compromise to increase diversity without losing the

advancements made in infiltrating commercial radio with local content (New Zealand on

Air, Making Tracks 5).

Applicants were asked to describe where the track was intended to be broadcasted and

how the funding would “improve the quality of their release” (New Zealand on Air, Making

Tracks 6). NZoA expressed a desire for distinctive songs and motivated artists – “we want

to help those who have helped themselves and who stand out from the crowd” (New Zealand

on Air, Making Tracks 6). Panels would be ruled by a majority and would number 6-‐8

members.

The panel was advised to consider applications based on the song, not the artist. As

Brendan Smyth advises panelists to think where would this particular song get played

(Smyth, Skype Interview).

In terms of selection, NZoA started with a pool of around 50, which was expanded to

around 75-‐80 over the course of three years. Generally, a panelist should be in a “position

to make a judgment against a piece of music” (Smyth, Skype Interview). The ideal panel

would contain, two commercial radio members, an alternative radio representative, a


63

member in the music media, a person familiar with music outside of Auckland and

someone with production ear (Smyth, Skype Interview).

By email Smyth also outlined the procedure around the formation and selection process

undertaken by a Making Track’s panel:

In the first week of the calendar month, we will appoint a panel. Six broadcasting and music industry/media pros plus one of the NZ On Air promo team. A panel of seven for that month. -‐In the first week we will also do “criteria checks” on the 120-‐130 or so applications that we invariably get each month. Criteria checks just means checking that newcomers meet the 10/22 eligibility requirement. -‐In the second week we will send the seven panelists a link to the 120-‐130 songs and the applications. We give them at least two weeks with the songs before we need their votes. -‐At the start of the fourth week of the calendar month we ask the panelists for their votes. That means their pick of the 25 best contenders in the field from a quality and broadcast (on air and/or online) point of view, bearing in mind the 60/40 mainstream/alternative split. -‐Mid-‐fourth week of the calendar month we assemble the panel in Auckland. We pool the votes. Any one song can get a max of 7 votes. Songs that pick up a majority vote … 4+ … go up on the board. Those projects will be funded. -‐Over the next couple of hours we will go through the 3 votes and listen again to each song as a group, discuss it and re-‐vote it. At that point, a song might pick up the majority votes that it needs to go up on the board. -‐At that point … if there is still room in the budget to do more … we will invite each of the panelists to “champion” a song that has been left behind … either a 3 or a 2 or a 1 vote … and pitch it to the group … why it deserves to be on the board. And that’s how it works. The 22-‐25 songs on the board are then recommended to NZ On Air for funding. The CEO has the delegated authority to approve the grants. We put the recommendations to the CEO the afternoon of the panel meeting and announce the decisions at midday the following day (Smyth, Email).

This administratively demanding procedure is followed every month.


64

Eligibility Criteria To be eligible for a “Making Tracks” grants applications had to provide evidence of at least

ten of the following criteria (New Zealand on Air, Making Tracks 8-‐9):

Artistic • A great song

Business

• A record deal • A publishing deal • A management deal • A distribution arrangement • Mandatory $2,000 to contribute to music video

Track Record

• A charted song on commercial/alternative radio • Sold 500+ singles or 250+ albums/EPs • A four star + review in reputable print or music journal • Won a music award • Completed a national tour • Significant international support slot • Played a major New Zealand festival • International success • Synced a song

Audience/Fan Base • 100+ paying public to a single show • More than 1,000 online fans (e.g. Facebook/MySpace) • More than 500 twitter followers • More than 2,000 plays on YouTube • Featured or charted on aggregator such as hypemachine.

Additionally the song must made by a ‘New Zealander.’ “Making Tracks” provide a

worksheet which helps determine whether the artist or group applying qualifies.13 This is

not as straightforward as it may appears as the Daniel Bedingfield episodes showed.

Controversy arose in 2002 when Daniel Bedingfield, a New Zealand born but UK based pop

13This worksheet is available at www.nzonair.govt.nz/document-‐library.


65

songwriter had significant chart success with ‘Gotta Get Thru This.’ The debate centered

around whether Bedingfield’s birth location was enough for his New Zealand airplay to

count as ‘local.’ Bedingfield’s single was eventually determined to not qualify as local

content (Day). Ironically, Bedingfield was eligible, to albeit unsuccessfully apply for

“Making Tracks” funding in 2013 as his album was recorded locally with a number of local

musicians (Stuff 2013). Other critics have debated whether international based artists,

such as Ruban Nielson (formerly of the Mint Chicks, now un Unknown Mortal Orchestra)

who in an interview said he was “bored of living in New Zealand” and receiving support

from an “American label” should be eligible (Sweetman 2011).

Sweetman’s criticism of Nielson’s eligibility is counter to NZoA’s strategy of supporting

international success as well as imposing a nationalism requirement. If funding caveats

where required for ‘anti-‐New Zealand’ comments, the road could be slippery slope of free

expression.


66

Further Developments -‐ NZoA Online In 2014 NZoA hired digital strategy consultant Eve Van Der Steen to review NZoA’s digital

music strategy. Van Der Steen was formerly the head of social media for Dutch dance label

Armada. Van Der Steen has extensive experience in this area, even winning a webby award

in recognition of her skills (Van Der Steen, LinkedIn Profile).

Van Der Steen’s review suggested a five point plan for NZoA to shape itself as the “go to

place on the web for discovering New Zealand music” (Van Der Steen, NZ On Air Music Online

8). Van Der Steen, saw the international success of artists such as Lorde, The Naked and

Famous and Kimbra, as well as the lack of any existing entity fulfilling this role, meant that

the digital promotions was an ocean of opportunity ready to explore. Van Der Steen’s

executive summary identified five specific opportunities and recommendations for NZoA to

consider. This would form the basis of the AllTracks online discovery platform launched in

May 2015.

In brief, Van Der Steen’s review considered and suggested specific ways in which NZoA

could use streaming services social media rebranding cross promotions on television radio

and online and new online promotional funding to expand NZoA’s “online presence” (Van

Der Steen, NZ On Air Music Online). It was suggested that taking these pro-‐active steps

would allow NZoA to take a leadership role and help educate artists, and other music

communities, such as student radio to follow (Van Der Steen, NZ On Air Music Online 5).

Van Der Steen, suggested that the New Zealand music market, had yet to strongly use social

media and digital promotion to push music out. Interestingly, enough Lorde and her


67

management teams strategic use of SoundCloud weren’t mentioned, despite being a

commonly international discussed example such promotion.

In July 2014, NZoA released their music strategy incorporating many of Van Der Steen’s

suggestions. The document outlined an imperative to look at creating an audience, using

online tools to facilitate direct music discovery; “the review suggest that instead of just

trying to influence broadcasters throughout promotions work… we should try to rally the

audience directly and at the same time, let the audience influence the broadcasters” (New

Zealand on Air Music Strategy 2). The new strategy saw NZoA embracing its role in the

“promotions business,” replacing the “infiltrate commercial radio” mantra with “multiple

impressions on multiple platforms” (New Zealand on Air Music Strategy 2).

NZoA’s strategy was divided into 5 objectives, strategies, actions and targets. To “find and

fund quality” local music, NZoA looked to “maintain and develop” new music discovery tools

(New Zealand on Air Music Strategy 5). Novel actions most notably included creating a new

online discovery tool – which would become the AllTracks portal. A number of specific

broadcast targets were outlined (New Zealand on Air Music Strategy 5):

• 20% NZ music on commercial radio;

• 30% NZ music on alternative radio;

• 25% NZ music on music TV;

• Average of 750+ radio spins for funded songs;

• Average of 150+ music TV spins for funded videos;

• Average of 50,000 online streams of funded songs/video; and


68

• 120+ songs for mainstream outlets and 80+ for alternative audiences.

The second objective has to partner with “key platforms” to support NZoA’s advocacy role

for funded content for both commercial and alternative audiences (New Zealand on Air

Music Strategy 6).

Specific targets were also outlined regarding the number of local programming features, hit

disc releases, showcases and songs distributed to broadcasters (New Zealand on Air Music

Strategy 6). The final two less radical objectives were to “find and exploit online

opportunities” and “collaborate with champions of New Zealand music” (New Zealand on Air

Music Strategy 7-‐8).

As engaging as these phrases appear, the quest for ‘more mileage’ hit the road with the

launch of the AllTracks online portal in May 2015. AllTracks is an attractive online portal,

with genre playlists of New Zealand music. Clicking on the genre of choice will take you to

a Spotify, YouTube or SoundCloud playlist curated by local tastemakers.


69

A screenshot of the AllTracks landing page at alltracks.co.nz

Screenshot of a click-‐through Genre Playlist at alltracks.co.nz All Tracks is new weapon in NZoA’s avenues to connect local content to an audience (NZoA

New Zealand on Air Music Strategy 1). This fundamental desire remains unchanged, but


70

interestingly how it is expressed suggestions a slightly more industry focused approach “As

well as being a cultural imperative, it is an economic imperative. It is how hits are made and

stars are created. It is how local music industries are built” (NZoA New Zealand on Air Music

Strategy 1).

A final new policy of note is the ‘Bringing it Home initiative.’ Brining it Home involves local

councils supplementing music video funding in exchange for filming to be undertaken and

use the resources of that regional area (NZoA, Bringing it Home). The initiative, still in its

early day is seen as way to not only promote funded content but also local creative sectors.


71

CHAPTER 5 CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF NZOA MUSIC FUNDING & MAKING TRACKS

NZoA conducted a one and two year review of the “Making Tracks” funding model which

made slight changes to the original model (New Zealand on Air, Two Year Review). For

example, after the one year review Vimeo and Spotify streams were included (only

YouTube was originally counted) and in the second year review SoundCloud was

incorporated (New Zealand on Air, Two Year Review).

Brendan Smyth provided me with the following data which shows the ‘broadcast outcomes’

of “Making Tracks” funded projects from 2011-‐2014. These were used to quantify the

“broadcast mileage” funded content was getting on radio, music televisions and online.

NZoA “Making Tracks” Broadcast Mileage 2011-‐2014

Projects Radio Plays Music TV

Plays

Online

Audio Plays

Online

Video Plays

Total Plays

2011-‐2012

260 Tracks

200,289

(771 ave)

41,593

(160 ave)

-‐ 26,913,593

(103,514

ave)

27,155,475

2012-‐2013

120 Tracks

169,794

(1,415 ave)

34,386

(287 ave)

7,000,523

(58,338 ave)

12,282,090

(102,351

ave)

19,486,793

2013-‐2014

105 Tracks

62,710

(598 ave)

10,424

(99 ave)

4,321,213

(41,154 ave)

2,697,058

(25,687 ave)

7,091,405


72

Totals 432,793 86,403 11,321,736 41,892,741 53,733,673

NB as at 31 August 2014

Although these numbers are important for NZoA’s internal reporting the criticism NZoA

has faced around its music funding policies goes beyond the numbers. In the next section I

will examine three distinct criticisms of NZoA by various commentators, analyzing how the

criticisms stand up after the implementation of “Making Tracks” as well as considering the

strength of these critiques. I have divided the criticisms into three sections; the scope of

funding – what music NZoA funds, the form of funding -‐ what funding is applied to and

finally operation improvements in how grants and administered and content promoted.

A. Scope of Funding Duncan Grieve’s ‘Follow the Money’ article mentioned earlier was one of the well

publicized NZoA critique. Grieve who interviewed a number of musicians and industry

figure was particularly critical of the commercially and ‘risk-‐free’ artists typically funded.

In particular, the influence of commercial radio broadcasters meant that NZoA’s “gaze is

effectively trained by commercial radio” (Grieve, Skype Interview).

When I interviewed Duncan he seemed pleased with the wider variety of artists being

funded, and noted that in particular more “interesting” artists were being funded (Grieve,

Skype Interview). He also noted that the concept of spreading out funding money across

more artists was of great benefit as ‘seed money’ to spur many artists to "particular level of

professionalism” rather than funding a few radio hit orientated acts (Grieve, Skype


73

Interview).

Further, in discussing the changes with NZoA’s Brendan Smyth on NZ Herald’s ‘Talking

Heads’ segment Grieve noted that concerns about ‘repeat funding offenders’ had been

mitigated by the single song submission, which meant funding was considered based on the

song and the act’s track record, particularly on commercial radio had much less sway

(Wicks). In summary, Grieve although still having reservations about the necessity of

funding suggested that “Making Tracks” had responded well to its critics:

overall… some things [songs] are great, some are horrible, but if I look at every list

that has come out, has been an individual track might not like, but can’t argue that it

doesn’t not provide a good sample of what we [as a country] are putting out (Wick).

Former NZoA CEO Chris Prowse however, is not impressed with the diversity gains of the

“Making Tracks” funding model. Focusing on NZoA’s statutory duty, Prowse considered

that the music that NZoA chooses to fund, via the mainstream, alternative and song

classifications, along with the fact that NZoA only promoted funded music is not what the

was intended by those who created the Broadcasting Act:

[I]f the alternative is also to have the potential to appeal to mainstream audiences, as

NZ On Air expects, then there is no room in NZ On Air’s concept of diversity of all the

special interest genres of New Zealand Music [referred to in the Broadcast Act at

s39(d)(ii) (Prowse, Off The Tracks).

Prowse cites examples of instrumental music as well as most non-‐mainstream music such

as traditional folk music as being incapable of fitting within the ambit of NZoA’s funding


74

despite it being a special interest genre which under the Act should be promoted. From

Prowse’s perspective “Making Tracks” only defines a ‘great song’ as one capable of being

measured with objective results, such as radio plays and streams (Prowse, Skype

Interview). Prowse considers that NZoA funding should be focused on “promoting the

broadcast of New Zealand music in its full diversity” to a “wider variety of listeners” (Prowse,

Off The Tracks).

Roy Mayes who released a paper ‘Sounds Like US’ criticizing prior models also maintains

his criticism of NZoA’s focus on funding popular music which can generate broadcast

mileage. Mayes remains critical of the lack of subjectivity and focus exclusively on

objective results. Mayes states that NZoA’s funding policies should included attempts to

describe why certain communities around New Zealand value particular music. For Mayes

“Making Tracks” is producing “nothing past I like that song or someone overseas likes the

song” (Mayes Skype Interview). Rather, what ‘Making Tracks’ should focus upon is the

albeit admittedly difficult role of ensuring that music being supported is music which is

remembered and admired by New Zealanders. Mayes suggests that this could be measured

be independent surveying (Mayes Skype Interview). In particular Mayes suggest a youth

radio network or purchasing commercial radio slots as a better mechanism for promoting

all New Zealand music (including heritage music) than “Making Tracks” funding. Mayes

was also critical of the leadership of NZoA whose senior staff has not changed significantly

since NZoA’s birth.


75

Criticisms around scope are the most difficult. Any arts funding ultimately involves choice

– there will be winners or losers. Even taking NZoA’s stance in defining ‘New Zealand’

without a need for national distinctiveness is a choice. Subjectivity is in any selection

process. The difficulty of the selection process in arts funding can only be remedies by a

clear mandate of what is intended to fund this and a clear procedures about how this is

done. NZoA’s mandate is somewhat clear but the result of pragmatic interpretation rather

than legislative or more passionately democratic direction. Regardless of the clarity and

consistency of process, my recommendations which follow in the next chapter suggest

creating an explicit publicly reasoned mandate for New Zealand music funding.


76

B. Form of Funding The second main group of criticisms around NZoA funding is the form of funding, what type

of grants NZoA gives out. The argument is typically made that funding dollars for music

could be funded in other avenues such as touring support, radio promotion and public

radio infrastructure, instead of or along with content funding.

Chris Prowse doesn’t see recording or music videos as the critical issues. Citing the low

costs of recording due to technology, Prowse considers that most recordings by New

Zealand artists is already self sustaining and would go ahead even without funding

(Prowse, Skype Interview).

For Prowse the ‘would the record be made, without funding test’ is the only principle

justification for recording funding: “Any intervention into funding music content by NZ on Air

should only arise if there is a particular type of music that has a “public good” aspect and that

music is unlikely to be available to the public unless the Government funds it” (Prowse, Off

The Tracks). Prowse suggests that NZoA focus more on promoting diversity instead of

content funding.

Michael McClelland a local musician and manager I spoke to thought the content funding

was short cited. Video funding from his perspective presumed the ‘quality artists appear

out of nowhere’ (McClelland, Skype Interview). Rather what funding should be used for is


77

direct support to musicians, for example a living wage or touring infrastructure, especially

to create venues that don’t rely on the selling of alcohol to be viable.

Duncan Grieve also commented on the venue issue, noting that most venues are in private

hands, and when they closed down, a common occurrence in New Zealand, “a whole town

of artists has nowhere to play” (Grieve, Skype Interview). One idea Grieve suggested was an

all ages venue infrastructure, in which young bands could play and New Zealander’s,

especially young New Zealanders introduced to music without alcohol being a necessary

prerequisite.14

Ian ‘Blink’ Jorgensen, a figurehead of the New Zealand independent music scene has

examined the need for more practical grass roots music funding in his collection of essays

‘The Problem with Music in New Zealand and How to Fix It’ released in 2014.

Jorgensen, although appreciative of the positive impact of NZoA’s recording and music

video funding approaches the issue from the perspective of someone with extensive DIY

experience. For Jorgensen, music funding is only a short term solution, and rather what

should be examined is “lack of [an] audience – not the result of that problem – artists have

no money” (Jorgensen 57). In his essay, Jorgensen submits a number of ideas, to encourage

discussion of ways to address this issue. The idea is to cure the illness rather than ease the

14 Creative New Zealand does fund a touring agency via the Performing Arts Network NZ Touring Agency. However, the scope of the funding is aimed at more ‘high art’ musical performers rather than popular music typically covered by NZoA. There has been a handful of tour support funding for popular musicians made by Creative New Zealand. Also see Performing Arts Network New Zealand and Creative New Zealand funding generally.


78

symptoms, by creating a “15-‐30” year plan with “realistic outcomes whose principle task it

to build and develop new infrastructure and an audience that is able to support the arts

without relying on government intervention” (Jorgensen 57).

Again, the argument is not technically a criticism of NZoA funding, as it discusses funding

outside of broadcasting, the argument is rather than this public money could be better

spent in other areas. Rather than providing content funding, Jorgensen provides examples

of more efficient infrastructural funding which addresses the problem of New Zealand

musicians – “that due to our small and spread population” earning a living as a musician

creating original content is extremely difficult (Jorgensen 56).

Recording Infrastructure Evocative of Jorgensen’s infrastructure approach is a proposal for NZoA to provide funding

to a local studio in exchange for a certain prescribed amount of time being set aside for

local musicians to record free of charge (Jorgensen 58). This approach has the added

benefit of a potential avenue to train buddying recording engineers. A similar approach

could also be taken for video recording (Jorgensen 60). The recording infrastructure is not

only endorsed because of its long term cost savings, but also because “studios build

communities” (Jorgensen 60).


79

School Tours Jorgensen’s ideas look to build communities not only within the creative community but for

the creative community. Jorgensen suggests that NZOA:

update their mandate to include building an audience, not just creating content for

existing audiences. Currently the only real strategies of getting young people involved

with music are competitive in nature. The Rockquest and Play it Strange are both

successful projects at getting young people engaged with music, however, they only

engage a very small percentage of people, the musicians, and needing more musicians

is not the problem, gaining an audience FOR those musicians is (Jorgensen 59).

Based on his own endeavors touring local bands around the country, Jorgensen suggest

that funding high school tours by local bands would foster an audience for New Zealand

music (Jorgensen 59). Jorgensen himself through his numerous ‘A Low Hum’ tours and

festivals has created a supportive and interested audience for independent musicians in

New Zealand. Although, high school touring is not a new initiative (I can recall local pop-‐

punk band ‘Goodnight Nurse’ playing my high school) it has never been carried out with

regularity. Being exposed to live music at a young age is a powerful tool to garner interest

in local music for young New Zealanders growing up and looking to create their own

identities.

Unfortunately, especially outside larger centers because of the spread out nature of New

Zealand’s population it is often not practical to play smaller centers, and even if shows are

played they are typically done so at bars which sell alcohol and don’t cater to those under


80

18. Regardless of the moral issues around of the alcohol sponsorship it does make it very

difficult to expose encourage younger attendees to live music.

Radio Communities Another source of community for local music is radio stations. Jorgensen mentions the

demise Fleet FM in Auckland, while various persons I spoke to often mentioned former

station Channel Z which provided a passionate “support network” for local music. Rather,

than forcing music onto commercial stations or imposing 100% local music like the failed

Kiwi FM these stations were critical in establishing audiences for local music. (Jorgensen

63)

Instead of only funding programs on existing radio stations, Jorgensen suggests funding

local niche stations around certain existing musical communities:

You’re looking for groups that already have some community built around them and

access to plenty of recordings. Groups like Kerosene Comic Book, melted Ice Cream, Dawn

Raid (so perfect, Dawn RAIDio anyone?!), Whammy/Wine Cellar, Beyond the Black,

Punkas.com, Flying Nun/Out, Sound explorers etc – the potential list is massive (Jorgensen

64).


81

Export Ideas The following recommendations on funding of local musicians to go overseas is again

outside the ambit of NZoA and is directed at the New Zealand Music Commission. Rather

than providing funding support for air flights, accommodation and other expenses to travel

to the United States, Australia or the United Kingdom Jorgensen puts forward the idea of

actually renting space, or purchasing equipment such as backline and touring vans which

artists could use once they pay their own way to get across. Rather, than selective funding

this proposition looks “to squeeze every dollar is to invest in infrastructure to share among

bands” (Jorgensen 68).

Another avenue to criticism NZoA’s funding is promotion. Although, a large number of

music videos are funded it is arguable that more effort should go into promoting them,

rather than simply creating them. Funded tracks or videos could gain more profile by

hiring publicity professionals or even allowing funding dollars to be used for features in

particular for hip hop artists (Grieve, Skype Interview). Yet, as the scope of funding gets

larger so does the ambit of what NZoA is trying to achieve. Again, from my perspective the

focus for NZoA should be inherently local not international.

NZoA’s broadcast mandate makes this focus difficult. For example, the music video would

appear a predominately international tool. With very few music television outlets, local

exposure only comes online. While a video is often a useful ‘asset’ to gain international

exposure, locally it is arguable that overall money could be better spend in other areas. As

archetypical as the idea of the breakthrough ‘viral’ video is, typically such videos these have


82

been DIY videos, the like of Azealia Bank’s 212 or New Zealand’s own unfunded equivalent -‐

Princess Chelsea’s The Cigarette Duet.15

Exposing music videos or funded tracks online is difficult. NZoA tools to expose unknown

artists is via digital platform The Audience (for ‘unreleased artists’) and a New Zealand

music channel on iHeartRadio as well as the recently introduced ‘All Tracks’ platform.

Personally, The Audience seems to be of little purpose and has a minimal audience beyond

the musicians themselves. Its hosting abilities don’t do anything that SoundCloud couldn’t

go and its promotional value seems limited. Potentially it could be grow to be useful like

Australia’s online station Triple J unearthed, but it appears that the ironic lack of an

audience as well as a much smaller population base, and lack of any influential affiliation

(e.g. Triple J) makes this unlikely.

NZoA’s latest promotional platform AllTracks released in May 2015 has had a

predominately positive reception. Karl Puschmann in the New Zealand Herald called the

site “disappointing,” expressing reservations about the quality, flow, lack of unsigned or

new music, as well as fact the site wasn’t hosted locally (Puschmann). However, most of

these criticisms seem unfair. Russell Brown response to these criticisms, such as the fact

that NZoA has a mandate to promote its content, the pointless excess of local hosting as

well as the existence of The Audience which features unsigned artists (Brown). Both

Brown and another reviewer at local blog Music Is Dead considered All Tracks a good start

15 These videos have had over 96 and 22 million views on YouTube as at August 2015.


83

as a introduction to the normal fan on the street who doesn’t have an extensive knowledge

of local releases.

Although, opinions will differ on the selections, the fact the local gatekeepers complied the

playlists instead of NZoA was viewed as positive, and the idea was seen as a clever way to

engage new listeners, a “good response” to the question “what’s up with New Zealand

music” (Music is Dead).


84

C. Operation Improvements

NZoA seems to be doing a good job of continuing improving the “Making Tracks” funding

process, a difficult task given the small selection pool of panelists. One suggestion is too

examine the $2,000 commitment which is a relatively large contribution for the typical

struggling musician especially considered that no band member receives any of this – a

talent fee is only paid to video directors. Some interviews noted cynically that while

uncertain on the value to the music community, the funding model was definitely helped

one group of artists – music video directors in New Zealand.

The AllTracks website is a admirable attempt to address the issue which was initially a big

issue with the “Making Tracks” funding model – how are lessor known funded tracks meant

to be exposed to a larger audience. However, I still think there are a number of

improvements that could be made to AllTracks.

As Russell Brown suggests, AllTracks is a way to curate and provide a spotlight on New

Zealand made music, one which wouldn’t naturally exist on mainstream streaming

services:

Spotify has no innate interest in New Zealand music and its algorithms don’t

particularly recognise it as a genre. Without a DJ, it all gets lost in the crowd (Brown).


85

For me the operative word in this statement is the DJ. Genre playlists are prevalent on

every single streaming service, let alone from other content aggregators. Additionally,

younger consumes are typically less constrained to boundaries of genre, making it difficult

and pointless to try and define what should fit where.

What is distinguishing the personality of the curator. As such I recommend that the

AllTracks playlists are organized by curator rather than genre. Choosing a diverse range of

curators will ensure that most genres are selected from. From my own experience, I can

recall discovering new local music through a blog created by Rueben Nielson of the Mint

Chicks, while Lorde’s endorsements have created significant exposure for a number of local

artists (Nielson and McDermott).

The curation needs to be interesting to engage, another approach could be to get guest

(perhaps even visiting international artists) DJ’s to create 30 minute mixes including a

large mixture of local content. In the era of the limited internet attention span it is often

the name in the headline rather than the content that gets the click. Focusing on

personality rather than genre is a better way to generate greater engagement with

AllTracks.


86

CHAPTER 6 RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE NZOA MUSIC

FUNDING & MAKING TRACKS At the end of this rigorous examination of the New Zealand music industry, public funding

of popular music and NZoA itself, it difficult to determine whether is NZoA’s “Making

Tracks” funding model is achieving its mandate of reflecting and developing New Zealand

identity and culture. My recommendations reflect this difficulty. The pivotal reason for

this difficulty is that the phrase ‘reflect and developing New Zealand identity and culture’

was never defined by in the legislation. Reasonable people can disagree as to exactly what

is the ideal role of NZoA.

NZoA’s role was self-‐defined by necessity. NZoA took a pragmatic approach attempts to fill

the gaps of need of the New Zealand music industry. These policies of pragmatism further

muddy the waters about what NZoA should be doing.

The only way to judge NZoA’s ‘success’ with ease, it to compare its reported ‘broadcast

outcomes.’ Broadcast outcomes demonstrate the reach of this content, but it isn’t a perfect

proxy for cultural impact. Content can reach a wide audience, but not be valued or have

any significant local impact.

The question that needs to be asked is whether these broadcast outcomes are useful. The

ambiguity around what NZoA is and what it should do means its often responding to


87

industry realities and criticisms, chasing a changing industry and often trying to meet an

undefined aim and catering to an unknown and typically unaware audience.

NZoA was a social experience for an alternative substitute of public broadcasting. In

contrast to the typically rigorous guidelines for public broadcasting, NZoA’s mandate was

much looser.

In addition to recognising only a restricted number of social outcomes from

broadcasting the New Zealand legislation lacked clear direction as it its public policy

goals. The types of local production that the legislators believe should be

assisted were not specified, nor was there any guidance as to which signals should

be accorded universal coverage. Further, there was no indication as to which of the

funding areas to be supported by the Commission were to have priority -‐ public service

programming, local production or universal coverage (Cocker 45).

The influence of the neo-‐liberal motivations of broadcasting reform at the time, has to led

to an over reliance on a ‘market approach,’ treating NZoA as a private enterprise even

though its existence is an admission that local market actors needed a ‘leg-‐up’ to compete.

Alan Cocker describes the ‘market logic’ of the reform and how it influences the operation

of NZoA:

Three factors reflecting the market logic were built into the Broadcasting

Commission’s brief and bound its ‘decision-‐making’ closely to the imperative of the

broadcasters. First, the Commission was established as a part-‐funder and the usual

funding partners were the commercially driven broadcasters. Second, it was required


88

to consider the likelihood of any project being broadcast in a ratings-‐governed

environment. Third, is had to take into account the potential size of the audience

attracted to a funded programme (Cocker 46).

NZoA is a body set up with the ‘no more government intervention than necessary’

approach with the intention to be phased out over time approach (Cocker 46). Yet, despite

this its funding dollars play a crucial role in the local industry, ‘propping it up’ to a large

degree. NZoA on air concerns itself predominately with commercial content likely to get a

ratings outcome to a large audience. Yet at no point was this mandated in the Broadcasting

Act. Rather it is a natural, pragmatic interpretation of NZoA and its political origins.

The stealth influence of neoliberal logics of political policies and practice is discussed by

Wendy Brown who describes how the ‘market logic’ effect:

To speak of the relentless and ubiquitous economization of all features of life by neo-‐

liberalism is thus not to claim that neoliberalism literally marketizes all spheres, even

as such marketization is certainly one important effect of neoliberalism. Rather, the

point is that neoliberal rationality disseminates the model of the market to all domains

and activities -‐ even where money is not at issue -‐ and configures human beings

exhaustively as market actors, always, only, and everywhere as homo oeconomicus

(Brown 31).

My opinion is that the strong neo-‐liberal logic of NZoA is ill suited to cultural policies in a

small music industry like New Zealand. The pragmatist approach favored by NZoA avoids

answering key questions of what reflecting and developing cultural identity actually


89

involves, but rather focuses on abstracting it to a numerical measure. Without considering

this mandate frequently in the operation of NZoA significant progress is difficult if not

impossible. Brown describes the ill fit of pure neo-‐liberal logic and policies of public and

commons goods such as national identity and culture:

the problem is not just that public goods are defunded and common ends are devalued

by neoliberal reason, although this is so, but that citizenship itself loses its political

valence and venue. Valence: homo oeconomicus approaches everything as a market

and knows only market conduct; it cannot think public purposes or common problems

in a distinctly political way (Brown 39).

As such, examining what reflecting identity and culture means is a critical part of my

following recommendations. Accordingly my recommendations will go beyond the current

broadcasting scope of NZoA, although I do provide some practical suggestions which could

be implemented in the current system. My recommendations are also limited by financial

constraints, the amounts of public funding available for such projects. These

recommendations are not immediately implementable as I have not considered budgetary

constraints or public financing issues.

Rather than focusing on the economic outcomes of NZoA, which are questionable in

themselves I will look at the under considered lofty motivations for NZoA funding. My

recommendations seek to move towards increasing the social utility of popular music in

New Zealand as defined by Simon Frith.


90

These utilities of ‘creating identity’, managing the ‘relationship between public and private

emotional lives’ and the power of music to ‘stop time and create nostalgia’ are powerful

ways to foster national identity and culture. As Frith says they provides an avenue for us to

make popular music “part of our own identity and build it into our sense of ourselves” (Frith

40).

My opinion is that reflecting and developing New Zealand identity and culture requires

more than policy, more than content creation and promotion, it requires which like the

popularity of a sport does -‐ active participation.


91

A. Contestable Funding Broadcast Funding Requires Infrastructure Alan Cocker discusses how the ‘contestable funding’ model of NZoA was inspired by

overseas models most notably in Canada and the United Kingdom. Yet, although similar

contestable funding models existing they were not the sole mechanisms of music funding

as in New Zealand. For example in Canada there were “two mechanisms in Canada to fund

local production and minority programming, but in New Zealand these were combined”

(Cocker 45). Similarly in the United Kingdom broadcasting policy there is also a public

service provision provided by non-‐commercial BBC funded by the license fee (Cocker 45).

Successful public radio stations like the BBC and Triple J are not only radio stations but

communities of common interest. Outside of student radio there is little presence of such

communities in New Zealand.

The closest recent example is Kiwi FM. Kiwi FM was a station which played 100%, and

then later 40% local music, receiving large amounts of programming support from NZOA

(New Zealand on Air, Our Music Everywhere).

Yet Kiwi FM was not a pure public radio model. Rather, Kiwi FM was established by

Mediaworks from ‘loaned’ public frequencies in a closed door arrangement made in 2012

(Bradbury, More Corporate Welfare). Skeptically some suggested that this compromise was

really a strategic move by Mediaworks to make sure a public youth network wasn’t

established.


92

During it’s run Kiwi FM continuously had uninspiring listening figures which ultimately led

to its demise (Plains FM). Kiwi FM failed to engage listeners and form a community.

Although, it featured a number of well known local musical identities, the lack of marketing

and original 100% New Zealand quota was considered by some as the reasons for failure,

along with the alleged ulterior motives of its private owner.

The playlists typically included a lot of lessor known local music which didn’t attract much

of an audience and seemed forced and formulaic. One vocal critic was former Channel Z

figurehead (a radio station which operated similar to Australia’s Triple J) who explained

why Channel Z, which was ultimately replace with Kiwi FM was more successful in ratings

and supported the local music scene:

by playing a mix of music, Channel Z had been a lynchpin between the commercial

radio and student radio worlds, drawing in new artists while supporting existing ones

and forcing other commercial stations to compete by adopting NZ music into their

playlists. Kiwi FM – by being 100% NZ music has become a dumping zone that other

stations don’t bother to compete with, the effect is less NZ music gets heard from the

total number of stations (Bradbury, Campbell Smith is Wrong).

Another phrase was that Kiwi FM ‘ghettoized’ local music – suggesting the majority of local

music only belonged on Kiwi FM. Channel Z was more influential and provided a better

balance of reach and local content – and fostered the creation of an audience rather than

isolating local music.


93

Public radio support is crucial if local music is to build a sustainable audience. As Kiwi FM

shows it would need to be done smarter with more personality and less compromise.

Although online broadcasting is an exciting opportunity radio broadcasting is still the

dominant form of music consumption in New Zealand. Right now, most of NZoA’s online

targeting is aiming for an unknown and unaware audience. Radio is much easier, and

listeners and potentially communities of interest can be identified. Identity doesn’t evolve

around an ‘rnb’ playlist but it often does around radio stations.

One proposed idea is to launch “a new youth-‐oriented public service radio station, catering

to more diverse demographics, such as Pasifika” to run alongside New Zealand’s current

public broadcaster Radio New Zealand as Radio New Zealand 2 or ‘RNZ2’ (The Standard).

Already, online portal ‘The Wireless’ is as an online youth focused alternative to Radio New

Zealand with written, audio and video content (The Wireless). A proposed RNZ2 could use

the now vacant public frequencies of Kiwi FM to this end (Bradbury, Kiwi FM Closing).

In the short term this might not see realistic given the current governments attitude

towards public broadcasting and New Zealand’s population is big enough to create a

‘demand’ for it (Stuff 2015). This is entirely inconsistent with what NZoA should be trying

to create – filling in for local content that would not otherwise be supplied by the private

media market, rather than being shaped by it. As such part of NZoA’s job is to create a

demand for this audience. The Wireless is a good platform for such innovation illustrating

how to mix local with international content. Other local initiative, such as the NZ Herald’s


94

live performance ‘Sundae Sessions’ could be used to create an audience in the existing

divide between student and commercial radio.

B. Soft Targets Most of NZoA’s targets are focused on broadcast results. Additionally this is common

justification for public funding, especially in the Helen Clark years to the economic impact

of NZoA’s support to the local industry. However, this is missing the point of the funding as

well as ignoring the ill economics of investing in popular music.

NZoA should also have targets which show specially how NZoA fundees are fostering

national identify and culture. Admittedly, such non-‐numerical targets are difficult but that

doesn’t mean they are not worth pursuing. The most obvious example is requiring news

reporting for in public television. Such clauses are also present in overseas funding

models:

their countries recognise that a variety of mechanisms are required to serve the multi-‐

faceted desirable social outcomes they demand from their broadcasting sector (Cocker

51).

Fostering identity and culture and an audience can be correlated to numerical reach, but

this isn’t the whole picture. For example, an online ad can get thousands of impressions,

but without any ‘clicks’ it might doesn’t drive sales. In a similar way funded local content

with many listens, but few significant engagements doesn’t promote local identity and


95

culture.

The absence of such targets creates a lack of accountability on this front. The difficulty is

establishing what these targets could be. Suggestions, could be a retrospective test, does a

funded act maintain its relevance over time, or even if there is a growing community

around an act or music scene.


96

C. Limit Focus to Domestic Concerns

NZoA is a domestic statue. To often discussions around developing ‘musical exports’ is

brought up in this conversation. This murks NzoA’s focus. Obviously outside of NzoA’s

broadcasting scope, the local touring infrastructure is crying out for attention, as is

something which could be catered through a solely domestic focus. NzoA’s mandate could

be changed to include a duty to help create an audience for local content and it’s scope

extended to funding touring infrastructure of school tours and all ages venues as suggested

by Ian Jorgenson.

D. Explicit Delegation of Who Supports the Export of NZ Music Although, both the Music Commission and NZoA seem to interact well, a more formalized

approach could be beneficial. For example, are the online broadcast numbers taken solely

from NZ ISP addresses. Additionally, the interplay between the two could be better focused

on the stage of the artist. In Canada FACTOR music funding is allocated on a ‘tier’ basis of

the applicant which is judged against a set of criteria and used to determine what type of

grants the artist is eligible for depending on the stage of the artists (FACTOR).

E. Wider Conversation about NZ Broadcasting

My final suggestion goes further than NZoA’s music focus. The issues I have engaged upon

in this colloquy have relevance outside of music. Currently, the question of national

identity is quite literally being discussed as proposals for a new New Zealand flag are

considered.


97

Additionally, the state of New Zealand current affairs television, and the need for an

impartial and more informed public television content was arose when popular current

affairs show ‘Campbell Live’ was cancelled by television network Mediaworks. ‘Campbell

Live’ hosted by John Campbell at the high exposure 7pm time slot was viewed as the last

remaining current affairs show that engaged with political issues rather than serve as high

rating ‘info-‐tainment.’ As media commentator Chris Trotter explains:

Television Critic, Diana Wichtel, advises her readers to look upon the latest free-‐to-‐air current affairs offerings as “a sort of absurdist performance art”. It’s an arresting notion: the idea that television journalists, in attempting to make sense of contemporary New Zealand, can produce only nonsense. Either, the current affairs programmes on free-‐to-‐air television are accurate journalistic depictions of an increasingly absurd society, or, depicting New Zealand society accurately has become too troublesome for mainstream TV journalism. This is a grim pair of options. They raise the question of whether or not the demise of serious current affairs journalism is peculiar to New Zealand television, or, whether it ours is merely the local reflection of a worldwide decline in the genre (Trotter).

Public broadcasting is such a small population can’t be determined by demand, but

ultimately has to be a decision made in what is considered the ‘public interest’ – put simply

is the long term interest of New Zealanders best served by providing public content of a

local nature that wouldn’t otherwise exist. Public broadcasting funding in New Zealand

should be viewed as funding culture for culture’s sake, rather than seeking alternative

economic justifications which are shaky at best. Are the social utilizes of local popular

music enough to justify this, do they contribute to our national identity and culture in a way

which future New Zealanders would value? I argue they would. As New Zealand grows

older the power of popular music is much more inclusive and important that symbolic

gestures like flags. Fostering local popular music in New Zealand requires more than ‘just


98

getting it on the air’ it requires engagement, which necessitates a public platform and

participation.


99

F. Afterword – A Call for Passion NZoA is a quasi government body set up to foster meaningful popular music for New

Zealanders. Its mandate is not focused on sustaining a local music industry or assisting in

making the export of music easier. The ‘popular’ part of meaningful popular music is only

one consideration. Pop music’s utility in amplified but not constrained or isolated solely to

popularity.

Pop bands like Six60 who a substantial number of young New Zealanders’ support despite

critical distain belong within the ambit of NZoA. A large amount of New Zealanders

identity with and enjoy Six60. However, popularity is not a means to an end. NZoA is an

inherently anti-‐pop mechanism intended to support minority local content that would not

otherwise have an opportunity to find the audience. Whether or not there is any existing

demand for the content is not the pivotal part. The question is rather -‐ what is pop music is

best for New Zealanders, rather than relative merits of this music against international pop

competition in the global music business.

Public cultural funding, whether disguised in neo-‐liberal quasi government bodies

ultimately requires a subjective patronization. Chasing popularity with minority content is

akin to a cat chasing its tail. NZoA, as an alternative to comprehensive public radio, has a

duty to provide meaningful content to a local audience. It should also have a duty to build

an audience to identify to and reflect local culture and identity.

NZoA should be about music which is creates passion. The political rhetoric of ‘creative

industries’, ‘cultural ambassadors’ and ‘cultural exports’ are not relevant to this domestic


100

concern and even within the context of musical exporting is something to be

avoided. Popular music reflects culture not political campaigning.

Many notable music figures operating in funded industries have noted how meaningless

such political justification are. New Zealand’s own Neil Finn, singer-‐songwriter of Crowded

House responded to a backlash to his comments on then Prime Minister of New Zealand,

Helen Clark’s comparison of New Zealand Music Month to ANZAC and Waitangi Day by

clarifying his concern (Johnson 24):

here is an argument that it might be a negative thing for New Zealand music to

become an exercise in flagwaving and feelgood posturing by the Government and

music industry. I was merely pointing out that we should be realistic about our

chances in the wider world and not fall for an orchestrated and illusory hype job

(Finn).

Former Pulp front-‐man Jarvis Cocker also spoke out about his disdain for the Labour’s ‘Cool

Britannica’ policies in the United Kingdom where politics and musicians appeared to join to

celebrate success in the cultural industries in a sneering B-‐Side ‘Cocaine Socialism’

(Cocker):

I thought that you were joking, When you said "I want to see you, To discuss your contribution,

To the future of our nation’s heart and soul",

"Six o'clock my place Whitehall", But I arrived just after seven, But you said "it doesn't matter,

"I understand your situation and your image I'm flattered, I'd just like to tell you,

That I love all of your albums, Could you sign this for my daughter?,


101

She's in hospital her name is Miriam, Now I’ll get down to the gist:, Do you want a line of this?,

Are you a socialist?,

I'm doing fine, Buzzing all the time,

Just one hit, And I feel great, And I support,

The welfare state,

You must be a socialist because you’re always of out on the piss, In your private members’ bar, Yes you are, you superstar,

Well you sing about common people, And the misshapes and the misfits, So can you bring them to my party, Can you get them all to to sniff this?,

All I'm really saying is,

Come on and rock the vote for me, All I need is come on, roll up that note for me,

The gist of all this is, Do you want hist or do you want misses?,

Are you a socialist, Socialist, socialist,

You can be just what you want to be,

Just as long as you don't try and compete with me, And we've waited such a long time for a chance to help our own kind,

Please come on and tow the party line, You owe it to yourself,

Don't think of anyone else, We promise we won't tell,

We won't tell, We won't, tell.

Discussions of national identity are fraught with difficulty. As the current debate over

whether New Zealand should change its national flag illustrates that this issue makes a

large amount of New Zealanders uncomfortable. New Zealand social commentator Gordon

McLauchlan infamously demarcated his fellow New Zealanders as the ‘Passionless People’

in the late 1970s. McLauchlan recently reaffirmed his view on revisiting the subject:


102

New Zealand remain polite, hard working, superficially cheerful, and unnervingly

compliant and complaisant. And we remain dismissive of anyone who makes a fuss

about anything (McLauchlan 143).

The social utilities of popular music appeal to the irrational human experience of our lives

and perhaps counter these ‘passionless’ tendencies. Further, the function of an artist in

society often necessitates causing a fuss. McLauchlan puts forward the words of beloved

New Zealand poet James K Baxter:

One of the functions of artists in a community is to provide a healthy and permanent

element for rebellion; not to become a species of civil servant (Baxter in McLauchlan

1548).

While McLauchlan questions whether New Zealand writing community has voices which

engage in anything outside of ‘middle class angst’ – I posit that New Zealand popular music

has plenty (McLauchlan 1945).

Personally Chris Knox’s ‘Statement of Intent,’ Tourette’s ‘John Key Son’s a DJ,’ rap group

Homebrew, The Mint Chicks, Anthonie Tonnon and Street Chant all come to mind. Indeed

Street Chant in aggressively covering New Zealand punk standard ‘No Depression in New

Zealand’ illustrates how past local popular music maintains its relevance to certain New

Zealanders. Perhaps McLachlan’s thesis of a passionless ‘smiling zombie’ community has

never been so succinctly described than in ‘There is No Depression in New Zealand: ’


103

There is no depression in New Zealand; there are no sheep on our farms,

There is no depression in New Zealand; we can all keep perfectly calm,

Everybody's talking about World War Three; everybody's talking about World War Three,

But we're as safe as safe can be, there's no unrest in this country

We have no dole queues, we have no drug addicts, we have no racism,

we have no sexism, sexism, no, no

There is no depression in New Zealand; there are no teeth in our heads

There is no depression in New Zealand; we sleep in a well made bed

Oh but everybody's talking about World War Three, yes everybody's talking about World War Three,

But we're as safe as safe can be, there's no unrest in this country

We have no SIS, we have no secrets, we have no rebellion;

we have no valium, valium, no, no

There is no depression in New Zealand; there are no sheep on our farms,

There is no depression in New Zealand; oh we can all keep perfectly calm,

perfectly calm, perfectly calm, perfectly calm, perfectly calm…

Popular artists as well the controversial pop artist can both reflect New Zealand’s culture

and identity. Given our typical reticence for complaint we must ensure that the

controversial remain eligible.

NZoA needs to find more way to actively build a passionate audience for popular music in

New Zealand. A passionate audience does not require a consensus audience or even

financially successful artists. Rather, the question we should be asking if we care about


104

NZoA: is popular music being protected and exposed to New Zealanders which reflects and

identifies national culture and identity?

When looking at this we need to ask harder questions. We need to ask whether New

Zealanders feel passionate about this music and consider whether this or not without such

support this music would be created and enjoyed in the same way. Economic

considerations are secondary and quite frankly there are plenty of more effective job

creation schemes than investing in popular music whose financial attractiveness even

outside of New Zealand are notoriously bleak.

Musical exports are the concern of the New Zealand Music Commission. NZoA is tasked

with making local music matter to the locals. If we are to care for NZoA and the implicit

difficulty in funding popular music we need to admit that popular music is being funded for

inherent social utility. We need to have passion. Before we can care for the system we

must care about the music it creates.


105

EPILOGUE

As of August 2015 the Making Tracks had just released their 21 funded tracks for the

month of July 2015. The issue of New Zealand public broadcasting lurks in the shadow as

political debates arise around options of a new national flag of New Zealand and the media

coverage surrounding the negotiating of ‘Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement.’


106

BIBLIOGRAPHY

AudioCulture -‐ the Noisy Library of NZ Music. AudioCulture. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 June 2015.

Bell, David, and Kate Oakley. Cultural Policy. New York: Routledge, 2015. Print

Bradbury, Martin. "Open Letter to the Broadcasting Minister on Kiwi FM." Tumeke! N.p., 24

Feb. 2012. Web. 22 July 2015.

Bradbury, Martin. "Campbell Smith Is Wrong, It's Not Downloadable Music That Is Killing

NZ Music, It Died a Couple of Years Ago!" Tumeke! N.p., 30 Mar. 2007. Web. 22 July 2015.

Bradbury, Martin. "Kiwi FM Closing – RNZ2 to Launch? « The Daily Blog."The Daily Blog

RSS. N.p., 20 Mar. 2015. Web. 27 July 2015.

Bradbury, Martin. "More Corporate Welfare for Mediaworks?" Tumeke! N.p., 2 July 2012.

Web. 22 July 2015.

Brown, Russell. "Hard News by Russell Brown." Public Address RSS. N.p., 8 May 2015. Web.

29 June 2015.

Brown, Wendy. Undoing the Demos: Neoliberalism's Stealth Revolution. New York: Zone

Books, 2015. Print.

Caddick, Chris. Review of New Zealand's Domestic Music Promotion and Funding Schemes.

Rep. New Zealand on Air, Dec. 2010. Web. 30 June 2014.

Caddick, Chris. Review of OF NZ On Air's International Music Support Programme (“Phase

5”). Rep. New Zealand on Air, Dec. 2009. Web. 30 June 2014.

Canadian Association for the Advancement of Music & the Arts, CAAMA, and Alicia Kish.

The Music Market in Australia, New Zealand. Rep. Ontario, Canada: CAAMA, Feb 2015.

Print.


107

Cloonan, Martin. Popular Music and the State in the UK: Culture, Trade, or Industry?

Aldershot, Hampshire, England: Ashgate, 2007. Print.

Cocker, Alan. "New Zealand on Air: A Broadcasting Public Policy Model?"Political Science

57.2 (2005): 43-‐54. SAGE Premier 2015. Web. 12 Feb. 2015.

Cocker, Jarvis, Nick Banks, Candida Doyle, Antony Genn, Stephen Mackey, and Mark

Webber. Cocaine Socialism. Pulp. 1998. MP3.

Creative New Zealand. "Funding Round: Arts Board Quick Response 1/2/13." Creative New

Zealand. N.p., 1 Mar. 2013. Web. 02 July 2015.

Creative New Zealand. "Funding Round: Arts Board Quick Response 27/7/13." Creative

New Zealand. N.p., 26 July 2013. Web. 02 July 2015.

Creative New Zealand. Guide to Preparing a Quick Response Grant Application. Rep. N.p.,

Web. 12 Mar. 2015.

Crowded House, Don’t Dream It’s Over, 1986. CD.

Day, Simon. "X-‐Factor Judge Wants Kiwi Bankroll." Stuff. N.p., 21 July 2013. Web. 20 June

2015.

Factor. "Factor." Factor. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 July 2015.

Finn, Neil. "I'm Enjoying Being Unpopular After PM Comments." NZ Herald. N.p., 10 May

2007. Web. 18 Aug. 2015.

Frith, Simon. Popular Music: Critical Concepts in Media and Cultural Studies. London:

Routledge, 2004. Print.

Gallagher, Robyn. "The Logo and the Damage Done." 5000 Ways to Love You. N.p., 27 Sept.

2013. Web. 05 Apr. 2014.


108

Garnham, Nicholas. "Concepts of Culture -‐ Public Policy and the Cultural Industries."

Studying Culture: An Introductory Reader. Ed. Ann Gray and Jim McGuigan. 2nd ed.

Glenda Keam and Tony Mitchell (ed) Home, Land and Sea Situating music in Aotearoa New

Zealand – Afterword by Don McGlashan at 281.

Grieve, Duncan. "FasterLouder Headliners | Lorde." FasterLouder Headliners | Lorde. N.p.,

5 Nov. 2013. Web. 07 June 2015.

Grieve, Duncan. "Follow The Money." Real Groove May 2010: 16-‐22. Print

Hesmondhalgh, David, Melissa Nisbett, Kate Oakley, and David Lee. "Were New Labour’s

Cultural Policies Neo-‐liberal?" International Journal of Cultural Policy (2014): 1-‐18. Web.

12 Mar. 2015.

Hoey, Dominic, Williams, Todd, and Brown, Russell. How Not to Be An Arsehole -‐ Episode-‐

12-‐friends-‐never-‐listen-‐and-‐strangers-‐are-‐interested-‐ft-‐russell-‐brown. 26 May 2015.

SoundCloud. Web. 27 May 2015.

International Federation of the Phonographic Industry. "IFPI Publishes Recording Industry

in Numbers." IFPI. N.p., 20 Apr. 2015. Web. 07 June 2015.

Independent Music New Zealand.. "IMNZ Members." Independent Music NZ Inc. N.p., 02

Dec. 2012. Web. 07 June 2015.

John Landau – Growing Young with Rock n Roll Real Paper on May 22, 1974.

Johnson, Henry Mabley. Many Voices: Music and National Identity in Aotearoa/New

Zealand. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars, 2010. Print.

Jorgensen, Ian. The Problem with New Zealand and How To Fix IT. Rep. A Low Hum, Sept.

2014. Web. 15 June 2015.


109

Joyce, Zita. Hearing Ourselves: Globalisation, the State, Local Content and New Zealand

Radio: A Thesis Submitted in Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of

Arts in Sociology at the University of Canterbury. Thesis. University of Canterbury, 2002.

N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print.

Keam, Glenda, and Tony Mitchell. Home, Land and Sea: Situating Music in Aotearoa New

Zealand. Rosedale (N.Z.): Pearson, 2011. Print.

Knox, Chris. Statement of Intent (off the Album Seizure). Flying Nun Records, 1989. CD.

Kraidy, Marwan M.. Hybridity, or the Cultural Logic of Globalization. Philadelphia, PA, USA:

Temple University Press, 2005. ProQuest ebrary. Web. 15 May 2015.

Lealand, Geoffrey. A Foreign Egg in Our Nest?: American Popular Culture in New Zealand.

Wellington: Victoria Uni, 1988. Print.

Lewis, Justin, and Toby Miller. Critical Cultural Policy Studies: A Reader. Malden, MA:

Blackwell Pub., 2003. Print.

Maori TV, prod. "Media Take, Series 2 Episode 10." Media Take. 26 May 2015. Maori TV ON

Demand. Web. 28 May 2015.

Mayes, Rob. Sounds Like US -‐ New Zealand Music. November: Self Released, 2010. Web.

McClelland, Michael. "'Indie Music Manager': The Official Walk-‐Through Guide." The

Corner. N.p., 12 May 2013. Web. 07 June 2015.

McDermott, Patrick. "Meet The New Zealand Teenager Behind The Internet's Best Rap

Covers." The Fader. N.p., 9 Dec. 2014. Web. 29 June 2015.

McGlashon, Don, and Richard Von Sturmer. There Is No Depression in New Zealand. Blam

Blam Blam. 1981. MP3.


110

McLauchlan, Gordon. The Passionless People Revisited. Auckland: Bateman, 2012. Kindle

for Mac.

McLennan, Peter. "Kiwifm 60% Local." Dub Dot Dash N.p., 19 Feb. 2012. Web. 22 July 2015.

Mollgaard, Matt, and Bill Rosenberg. "Who Owns Radio in New Zealand."Communications

Journal of New Zealand 11 (2010): 85-‐108.

Music Is Dead. "Dear All Tracks: A Letter To Present and Future You."Music Is Dead. N.p., 07

May 2015. Web. 29 June 2015.

New Zealand Music Commission. Strategic Plan 2014-‐2106. Rep. N.p., 1 July 2014. Web. 12

Mar. 2015.

New Zealand Music Commission. "About.” N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Aug. 2015.

New Zealand Music Foundation. "The New Zealand Music Foundation."Home » NZ Music

Foundation. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Aug. 2015.

New Zealand On Air. "AllTracks Explore New Zealand's Music." AllTracks Explore New

Zealand's Music. N.p., May 2015. Web. 20 June 2015

New Zealand On Air. "Bringing It Home." • NZ On Air. N.p., May 2015. Web. 20 June 2015.

New Zealand on Air. Making Tracks -‐ NZ On Air's New Music Funding Scheme. New Zealand

on Air. N.p., May 2011. Web

New Zealand On Air. "Promotion." NZ On Air Promotion. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Aug. 2015.

New Zealand On Air. Making Tracks Two-‐Year Outcomes Review. Rep. N.p., Jan. 2014. Web.

Feb. 2015.

New Zealand On Air. Music Strategy. Rep. N.p., July 2014. Web.

New Zealand on Air. "Our Music Everywhere." NZ On Air. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 July 2015.

Nielson, Ruban. "No More Blogs." No More Blogs. N.p., 13 Aug. 2009. Web. 29 June 2015


111

Norris, Paul, and Brian Pauling. NZ On Air An Evaluative Study from 1989-‐2011. Rep. New

Zealand on Air, Dec. 2011. Web. 10 Apr. 2015.

NZ Music Commission "End of Year 2013 NZ Music Statistics." End of Year 2013 NZ Music

Statistics. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 June 2015.

NZ Music Commission. "About the New Zealand Music Commission."About the New Zealand

Music Commission. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 June 2015.

NZ Music Foundation. "About Our Work." NZ Music Foundation. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 July

2015.

Patea Maori Club, Poi E 1982. CD.

Performing Arts Network NZ. "PANNZ Touring Agency." Pannz. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 July 2015

Pinchefsky, Carol. "The Impact (Economic and Otherwise) of Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit

on New Zealand." Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 14 Dec. 2012. Web. 03 June 2015.

Plains FM. "Government Funding of Kiwi FM Deplorable." Government Funding of Kiwi FM

Deplorable. N.p., 3 July 2012. Web. 21 July 2015.

Prowse, Chris. "Off The Tracks." NZ Musician. N.p., 22 June 2011. Web. 22 June 2015.

Puschmann, Karl. "NZoA's New Music Site Gets Thumbs down." NZoA's New Music Site

AllTracks Gets Thumbs down. N.p., 5 May 2015. Web. 29 June 2015.

Radio Broadcasters Association. Our Annual Report 2013. Rep. N.p., 15 May 2013. Web. 4

Jan. 2015.

Radio New Zealand. "News National Touring Agency to Be Supported by Creative New

Zealand." New National Touring Agency to Be Supported by Creative New Zealand. N.p., 3

Dec. 2014. Web. 02 July 2015.

Recorded Music NZ. "Recorded Music NZ Wholesale Music Report." We Create. N.p., 12 Mar.


112

2015. Web. 20 Apr. 2015.

Reilly, Brendan. "Tiki to Mickey: The Anglo-‐American Influence of New Zealand

Commercial Music Radio 1931-‐2008." Thesis. University of Canterbury, 2011. Print.

Ridler, David. Making Tracks Two-‐Year Outcomes Review. Rep. New Zealand on Air, Aug.

2012. Web. Feb. 2015.

Scott, Michael. Making New Zealand's Pop Renaissance: State, Markets, Musicians.

Burlington: Ashgate, 2013. Print.

Shuker, Roy. Understanding Popular Music Culture. London: Routledge, 2001. Print.

Shuker, Roy. Understanding Popular Music Culture. London: Routledge, 2008. Print.

Smyth, Brendan. "NYU Thesis -‐ NZ on Air." 19 June 2014. E-‐mail.

Smyth, Brendan. Making Tracks Panel Policy & Protocols. Rep. N.p., July 2011. Web. Apr.

2015.

Statistics New Zealand. " Subject Categories." Browse. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 April 2015.

Statistics New Zealand. "National Population Estimates: At 30 June 2014."National

Population Estimates: At 30 June 2014. N.p., 14 Aug. 2014. Web. 07 June 2015.

Stuff. "Bedingfield Misses out on Grant." Stuff. N.p., 25 July 2013. Web. 20 June 2015.

Stuff. "PM Questions Demand for Public Broadcaster." Stuff. N.p., 16 Apr. 2015. Web. 27 July

2015.

Sweetman, Simon. "The Joke That Is NZ on Air Funding: II." Stuff. Fairfax, 14 Dec. 2010.

Web. 09 June 2015.

Sweetman, Simon. "The Joke That Is NZ on Air Funding: III." Stuff. N.p., 23 Aug. 2011. Web.

20 June 2015.

The Standard. "Kris Faafoi on Broadcasting." The Standard. N.p., 29 Sept. 2013. Web. 27 July


113

2015.

The Wireless. "Home -‐ The Wireless." Home -‐ The Wireless. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 July 2015.

Trotter, Chris. "Not Understood: Why New Zealand's Current-‐affairs Television Is so Bad

The Daily Blog." The Daily Blog. N.p., 13 June 2015. Web. 22 July 2015

TVNZ. “Ed Sheeran's Heading to the Bay." TVNZ Ondemand. N.p., 25 Mar. 2015. Web. 09

Aug. 2015.

United States Census Bureau. "Population Estimate." United States Census Bureau. N.p., n.d.

Web. 07 June 2015.

Van Der Steen, Eve. NZ On Air Music Online. Rep. New Zealand on Air, Aug. 2014. Web. 15

Apr. 2015

Van Der Steen, Eveline. LinkedIn Profile. N.p., 20 June 2015. Web. 20 June 2015.

Wicks, Sam. "Talking Heads: Duncan Greive and Brendan Smyth." NZ Herald. N.p., 1 May

2012. Web. 15 Apr. 2015.

Yúdice, George. The Expediency of Culture: Uses of Culture in the Global Era. Durham: Duke

UP, 2003. Print.

INTERVIEWS CONDUCTED BY ALAISTER MOUGHAN

Grieve, Duncan. Skype Interview. 16 February 2015.

Joyce, Zita. Skype Interview. 16 February 2015.

Mayes, Rob. Skype Interview. 25 February 2015.

McCelland, Michael. Skype Interview. 17 March 2015.

Mollgaard, Matt. Skype Interview. 8 March 2015.

Prowse, Chris. Skype Interview. 8 March 2015.

Smyth, Brendan. Skype Interview. 25 March 2015.


114

INTERVIEW CONSENT FORMS

Duncan Grieve


115

Zita Joyce


116


117

Rob Mayes


118


119

Michael McCelland


120


121

Matt Mollgaard


122


123

Chris Prowse


124


125

Brendan Smyth


126


127

STUDENT CONSENT FORM


128

Documents

Reflecting and Developing Identity and Culture: Is New Zealand's Public Music Funding Model "Making Tracks" Achieving its Objectives?