Why Did The Naked and Famous Tell BBC They Were Self-Funded?

It was pretty easy to miss the part of the BBC interview with The Naked and Famous where they mention that they self-funded their music, especially considering how exciting the prospect of them succeeding overseas at the moment is. But there it was, published last month – to wit:

BBC: What was it like when Young Blood hit number one at home?

Aaron Short: It was absurd! Setting aside a couple of Pop Idol things, that hadn’t happened to a homegrown band for 16 years, or something ridiculous like that. It was a huge deal, especially because we’d been doing everything on our own terms – self-made, self-produced, self-funded.

Interesting comment so I hit up the NZ On Air website, where I learned that the band have received $80,000 in total since 2008. I emailed NZoA’s NZ Music Manager Brendan Smyth for confirmation on the number and he came back with an even bigger one: $105,000, which breaks down into 7x Music Video grants ($35,000)  1x Album grant ($50,000) and 1x International Radio Promotion grant ($20,000).

How are NZ taxpayers supposed to feel about funding a band for $100,000+ and then effectively being written out of their success story? Considering that we’ve all heard of local artists that struggle to get funding, it’s unjust to say the least when someone like this implies that the money was their own, or that they made it to a certain point without the help of anyone else.

That last bit of funding is intriguing too – I had never heard of it myself so found out more about the criteria. According to Smyth, “Funding for international radio promotion campaigns has been part of NZ On Air’s “Phase Five” international New Zealand music programme/budget since 2005.  It’s where we reimburse 50% of the actual and eligible costs of a campaign to get a radio (or music television) airplay result for New Zealand music in an overseas territory, up to a maximum of $20,000 per project.  The funding can be used for contracting independent radio pluggers in an overseas territory, doing radio promo tours, radio showcases, etc”.

I’m still waiting to hear back from TNAF’s manager Paul McKessar for a comment.

UPDATE 27.04.11: Here’s a correction from the NZ Herald posted on the TNAF Tumblr page, stating that it was a misquote. My understanding is that it was also Thom that made the statement, not Aaron.

94 Comments

  1. There is actual truth it what Aaron said. Aside from video grants. That band had not had funding for recording prior to Young blood going number 1 here. I’m 99% sure they got the album grant and overseas funding post Young Blood being written and recorded and probably going number 1. And they’ve only funded 6 videos to date.

  2. And no mention of their former label Round Trip Mars, and the hard work their former label boss Stinky Jim did for them, like getting them to CMJ in New York in 2008.

    • Not to mention the $10,000 Outward Sound grant they got for that CMJ trip too, from the NZ Music Commission.

  3. “Setting aside a couple of Pop Idol things, that hadn’t happened to a homegrown band for 16 years”

    What? I was sure that was wrong, so looked it up. It seems they overlooked people like Scribe (who killed the chart), Tiki Taane, and hell, even Smashproof didn’t get to number 1 through “Pop Idol”. That kind of annoys me.

    • Julie Petsounds says:

      Yeah that shit sucks. WTF have they been living in a hole or some shit. It totally discredits the other musicians. WE ARE BIG IN ENGLAND SO WHAT WE SAY ABOUT NZ IS WHAT HAPPENS.

    • Hard.

      • Scribe, Smashproof, Tiki…are not ‘bands’. I think TNAF are getting confused- I read that no NZ ‘band’ had debuted at no.1 in x years and I guess they’re treating it as no NZ ‘artist’.

    • OK, here’s a list of NZ artists who have had number one singles in the decade before ‘Young Blood’. I’ve already taken out all the NZ Idol contestants and pet-oriented Xmas novelty singles.

      Dec 2000-Jan 2001: Fur Patrol
      May 2002: Goodshirt
      Aug-Nov 2003: Scribe
      Oct 2003: 3 The Hard Way
      Feb 2004: Scribe
      Jul-Aug 2004: Misfits of Science
      Aug 2004: Adeaze
      Sept-Oct 2004: Dei Hamo
      Oct-Nov 2004: P-Money feat Scribe
      Jan-Feb & Apr-May 2005: Savage
      Mar-Apr 2007: Atlas
      July 2008: Tiki Taane
      Aug 2008: Nesian Mystic
      Oct-Nov 2008: P-Money feat Vince Harder
      Feb-May 2009: Smashproof feat Gin
      Mar 2010: J Williams feat Scribe

      If we exclude the solo artists, that leaves 8 NZ groups with number one singles.

      Let’s assume that TNAF are all too young to remember the early 2000s (otherwise 16 years wouldn’t be “something ridiculous”, it would be “a couple of years ago…wait, sixteen? Really?”) – so let’s give them the benefit of the doubt and cross off ‘Sophie’ and ‘Lydia’. That’s six.

      Now let’s say they forgot all about Atlas and their terrible chord-for-chord ‘Sunday Bloody Sunday’ copy. Goodness knows I had.

      That leaves number one singles from five non-pop-idol New Zealand bands and groups: 3 The Hard Way, Misfits of Science, Adeaze, Nesian Mystic and Smashproof. I’d be interested to know why Aaron Short doesn’t count any of these as ‘homegrown bands’.

      • Dan Taipua says:

        Wow, look at all the P.I. up in that list. Hearty as.

      • Francesa says:

        DEBUT????

      • @Francesca: I just went back and re-read the original interview (you owe me a beer for that, noone should have to put up with limp Tearaway-student-journalist questions like “how was the band formed?” and “what are your influences?” – noone). If Aaron was talking about debut singles going to number one, then neither he nor the reporter made that explicit. It is completely fair to read that statement as “no New Zealand band has been at number one on the charts in sixteen years”. The quote above wasn’t taken out of context – there is no context to lose.

        Let’s give him the benefit of the doubt, anyway. ‘Brother’ was Smashproof’s first single. Surely they count as a non-pop-idol New Zealand group. Misfits Of Science? ‘Fools Love’ was their first single, too. And if Atlas had a single before ‘Crawl’ then I’ve certainly never heard of it, and neither has the RIANZ chart. So even by that criteria, his claim still doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

      • Peter Mcl says:

        Hi Petra -The BBC article starts with this – “It’s not every day that a New Zealand band makes their chart debut at number one – even if you happen to be living in New Zealand.” So Aaron is correct, tho Hussien’s quote from the article doesn’t really make that clear. Cheers

        see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recording_Industry_Association_of_New_Zealand#Number-one_debuts

    • Yep thats the bit that got me too… 16 years? There has been a SHITLOAD of NZ artists to top the album / singles chart in the past 16 years – probably too many to name.

      • Hi folks – I think you are misunderstanding the terminology..
        “Debuting at # 1” means that when the song is released for sale it goes straight to #1 instead of most cases where it debuts (hits the charts) at #15 or something then works its way up the charts to # 1…
        To actually debut at #1 is incredible, especially competing with so many massively funded international artists.
        I think there are bigger issues to worry about regarding the misuse and misrepresentation of tax payer money in NZ..

      • Avalanche City did it.

  4. Joel – Naked and Famous album grant was March 2010 according to NZOA website. Youngblood at number one – June 2010.

  5. I’m wrong on them receiving funding prior to it going #1 they got album funding
    and @Peter McLennan is right too about Jim and CMJ. i think they owe a lot to Jim discovering them.
    But i do know they wrote/recorded that song before getting or knowing they would get album funding.

  6. Daaamn says:

    That chick is a fuckin’ ultra babe

    i love this band now

  7. Julie Petsounds says:

    I know bands put a lot of their own time, energy and money into their projects without any returns. Maybe since their time in England they have realised that you can make sweet pingas doing music and that’s why they feel it was self funded.

  8. @Lucas – Aaron is reffering to a local song debuting on the charts at number one – he’s correct. Last one was True Bliss, and Ben Lummis.

    see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recording_Industry_Association_of_New_Zealand#Number-one_debuts

  9. Annabelle Fay did the same thing a couple of weeks ago in the Sunday Star Times, said she was lucky because her music was ‘self-funding’ so she didn’t have to have a day job.

  10. Dan Taipua says:

    Can someone give me a short refresher course – will they (or any other recipient) have to pay this money back?
    Is there an arrangement which puts NZOA as a priority creditor or something?
    Sorry for being lazy.

    • Kirsten says:

      Just adding another lazy question: Is there a limit to how much money a band/artist can receive in grants? I understand there are some bands that have received a shitload, ie. Autozamm.

      Dan I don’t think bands have to pay the money back, but I’ve got nothing to back it up…

    • Hussein Moses says:

      Album funding is paid back, but at such a small rate that it would probably never be recouped.

      From the NZ On Air website – http://www.kiwihits.co.nz/funding/details/album

      “Album funding must be repaid from domestic sales of the album on the basis of one dollar per CD album sold and/or 80 cents per digital album sold and/or 08 cents per digital single sold from a funded album”.

      • @Kirsten – under the Caddick report, one of the reccomendations was reducing levels of funding for bands after their 1st/2nd/3rd grants, which I think NOZOA has adopted.

      • Also I understand that they basically match you up to $50,000, I don’t think they just give you $50K

      • Duncan says:

        NZ on Air totally just give you $50k cash/bank transfer. I mean, nominally it gets matched, but the money arrives in a lump and the accounts that prove the matching come through later. That’s how I understand it, anyway. Also if you look at the timing of the TNAF funding, which was veeery close to Young Blood’s release, it’s entirely possible that (as is apparently common) that the money is funding their flying round the world promoting the album rather than its recording. I don’t really have a problem with that per se, but it’s kinda silly that people have to pretend they’re spending money on recordings and videos when they’re actually buying plane tickets and renting vans.
        And, as has been pointed out before, the $50k thing is supposed to be the maximum you can apply for, but in practise like one band (Cobra Khan, from memory) has ever gotten less than the full amount. So that’s just become arbitrarily the amount an album costs here.

    • Gareth Shute says:

      I’m no expert on these matters, but I’ll share my limited understanding:

      – Music Video and New Recording Grants don’t have to be paid back
      – Funded albums require an artist to supply sales figures and pay back a certain percentage per album sold
      – For Outward Sound, the band pays it’s own way, but then the agency reimburses half of its costs (after being shown the receipts)
      – I assume for the international Radio Promotion, it seems you’d have to prove what campaign you had in place and then NZOA would give you half (up to $20,000)

      I don’t think there’s any limits to how much NZOA funding you can receive. If a band continues to receive radio/television play, then NZOA is acheiving its aim and therefore wouldn’t see any reason to stop funding the artist.

      • Gareth Shute says:

        Actually, I should note the NZOA’s album funding seems to be a reimbursement model as well. Their website states that the scheme is still under review, but for previous applications it relied on an artists having two charts hits (the higher the better). The exact wording (if you’re not already bored by how indepth this is getting) is as follows…

        “We will use new prioritising criteria. In each round, we will take each artist’s two highest airplay charting songs and add those songs’ peaks together to give each artist a score. The best score an artist can get is “2” (which is two #1 NZ Airplay Chart songs) and the worst is an “80” (which is two #40 NZ Airplay Chart songs). The artists with the lowest scores will be the priorities for funding in that round.

        “What this means is that from now on two recent radio hits is not enough. An artist will still need two radio hits (two RadioScope NZ Airplay Chart Top 40 songs) to be eligible to apply but it will be the quality of the radio hits (meaning, how high they charted) that will determine which projects we will fund. “

  11. Here’s the official International Radio Promotion Fund guidelines – I couldn’t find them on the net anywhere but Brendan Smyth forwarded them onto me.

    http://thecorner.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/INTERNATIONAL-_RADIO-PROMOTION-FUND.docx

  12. Dan Taipua says:

    It’s not so much the money (about 1/5th the cost of a single Outrageous Fortune episode) it’s that they’re pretending they did it without any help. Pretty arrogant really.

  13. FUK DA PO LICE says:

    wheres grant oi?

  14. I am not a TNAF fan in the slightest. I think the guy is a bloody idiot with a penis up his bum, and most of their songs are blatant rip offs (all of this/ All my friends – LCD Sound system Plagiarism)

    But I have no qualms with them getting album funding because they have probably payed more of it back with the dollar for dollar scheme than most other funded bands..

    • Kelvin says:

      But that’s not really anyone’s problem here?? No one is denying that they wrote a good pop song and deserved to be funded…I, er…did you read the article???

  15. Kinda have to agree with @Dan here – at least TNAF have garnered a fair amount of support in the UK, and obviously here at home. I’m no fan either, but they certainly seem to be making the most of their funding.
    As for claiming to be self-funded from the get-go – was that guy even in the band? I thought it basically the front 2 + whoever until not long before the album dropped. I could be/probably am mistaken, but it may explain why he appears to not know what he’s talking about, and why he didn’t mention Jim & Round Trip Mars.

    • Peter Mcl says:

      @Sean – Aaron was TNAF’s studio boffin, who initially stayed in the studio, before later joining Thom and Alisa in the live band. So he was there from the start, when they got signed to Jim’s label Round Trip Mars. TNAF have rewritten their own history…

  16. here i am tiki tane!!

  17. Gareth Shute says:

    This whole discussion gets to the heart of people’s discomfort with TNAF. The band seemed to emerge from their studies in Audio Engineering with this strong idea of what they wanted to do. Therefore they didn’t really make friends with many local musicians and didn’t spend the requisite time hanging out at Whammy Bar. Instead made a successful song/video (“Serenade”) and started charging $15-20 for their shows.

    From this point on, I get the feeling that people saw them as presenting themselves as an “indie band” but actually acting like a pop group (especially when they ditched their small label to sign with a major and joined the ranks on NZ’s most powerful management group, CRS). This current drama seems to play into the same trope.

    Sure they might’ve “self-funded” the recording of the song initially, but they also have a huge amount of backing from the NZ music industry and the local funding bodies (which seems to be what has riled up some of the commentators above). But at the end of the day, you’ve gotta admit that how they’ve acted and presented themselves has actually made them hugely successful. And it’s not as the major label execs back home would be that grateful to hear about all the great work that Round Trip Mars did for them, so maybe they’re just being tactful.

  18. Chelsea says:

    Why does everyone hate Thom Powers so much? As far as I’m aware he’s an alright bro.

    • matthew says:

      coz some dudes were abusing him and then one threw a banana at him so thom sacked the dude out and then they all got internet tough about it. the end

    • LongtimeReaderFirstTimePoster says:

      You listen to his acceptance speeches at the vodafone awards? Guy is a d-bag.

  19. Francesa says:

    Have none of you heard of “mis-quoted” and bad journalism – it happens all the time and look what it has stirred up. Unfair.

    • I don’t see how this could have been a misquote and an accusation of bad journalism is pretty weak in this context… it’s a simple interview.

      • Francesa says:

        Sorry Chris – I didn’t realise that you were actually present at this interview – I believed that the reference was pre Passive Me Aggressive You days – you know when they were starting out. But then you seem to know better.

      • But they had been receiving funding for 2 years totaling $15,000 before Youngblood/PM,AY funding. I guess their full answer must have been edited?

        “It was a huge deal, especially because we’d been doing everything on our own terms – self-made, self-produced, self-funded [until 23 months before we hit #1].” maybe?

    • Duncan says:

      Francesca it does seem a little odd that you’re assuming the BBC – who have been around a while and have a pretty decent rep as far as journalism goes – misquoted the band. Like I enjoy the Naked and Famous’ music as much as the next guy, but if it comes down to ‘did the Naked and Famous say something which stretches the truth’ or ‘did the BBC and misquote them’, I’m probably not alone in leaning towards the Beeb. Seems weird to assume otherwise. And is it them or Hussein you’re accusing of bad journalism?

  20. “Why does everyone hate Thom Powers so much? As far as I’m aware he’s an alright bro.”

    he looked at me funny on K Road and then I told one person. then they told one person.. and it’s just spiralled.

    It never should have come to this. He probably just had something in your eye. I’m sorry Thom. xo

  21. Thom Pfft… TOM

  22. It really gets back to artists trading on being ‘indie’ when they are nowhere near being independent in the slightest. They seem very flavour of the week, so no doubt they will be out on their asses in a year

  23. Goonbag says:

    Why is anyone surprised?
    NZ On Air has continually funded rubbish pop music since day one.

    Please get it through your skulls that ‘New Zealand’ is not a music genre..
    and if it were 90% of all of it would be pointy toed slanty haired clap trap.

  24. Social historians will tell you that autobiographies (memoirs, oral history narratives et al) tend to follow one of a few basic plot-lines: the bad-boy made good, the picaresque hero vs. bureaucratic absurdity, and the particularly hoary Self-Made Man narrative. Basically, we can’t help but pick and choose life events to fit one of these well-worn paths. It’s a sort of storytelling shorthand: we know the conventions of the genre, so we don’t have to think too hard or question all the bits that were left out.

    The thing with self-made man narratives is that they tend to way overstate the narrator’s humble beginnings and way downplay all the people who helped the narrator on his ascent. Our hero may truthfully say that he worked his way up from mailroom clerk to CEO – but neglect to mention that the mailroom job was a part-time student job, hooked up by a wealthy uncle who owned the company.

    As I see it, Aaron Short is just following the same narrative path in this interview: the self-made [read: independent] band’s rise from zero to heroes, all by the sweat of their brows and a bit of pluck. Mentioning NZ on Air or Round Trip Mars or bands like Fur Patrol who took a then-unknown on a national tour would just get in the way of a good (or at least, narratively convenient) story.

  25. Sandra says:

    Well – and following on from Petra Jane’s comment, which I agree with – Aaron was correct, wasn’t he? The band HAD been rolling on, self-funding and the like. Eventually, of course, they did receive funding – but that wasn’t always the case.

    “It was a huge deal, especially because we’d been doing everything on our own terms …”

    I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to suggest Aaron was referring to the band’s trajectory from Nothing to Huge Success. Nothing much more sinister than perhaps poor phrasing.

    Just sayin.

  26. If the Naked and Famous were geniunely self-funded at the start, they were *extremely well self-funded*. Anyone who saw their ludicrously expensive (and under-attended) first tour would agree with me, I think.

    I always basically assumed it was astro-turfed indie. There was never anything indie about them. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but why the pretense?

  27. Francesa says:

    Its a shame to see so many of you wanting to put down a young band just trying their hardest to succeed – with some good honest hard yards. Do you honestly believe they would intentionally undermine the NZ Music industry back in their home town? Come on guys – get your facts right. Call it poor phrasing, misquoting whatever. Obviously incorrectly interpreted. Lets give them support or at least acknowledge their efforts whether or not we like their type of music. Go Kiwis…..and good luck. We are not all kiwi knockers!!

  28. matthew says:

    give me parochialism or give me death

  29. Just to clear up the chart side of things, TNAF were the first local group in 16 years to DEBUT at #1. Info from the appropriate Chartbitz column is as follows:
    The big news of the week is the number of firsts racked up by Auckland five-piece band The Naked And Famous. Out of the box their single Young Blood knocks all other comers aside and claims the top slot on the Singles Chart with their first ever chart appearance.
    Not only is the tune #1, it’s the first #1 debut in nearly three years. Jamaican Sean Kingston’s Beautiful Girls was the last to open in the penthouse spot in July 2007 for a six-week dash. Young Blood is also the first #1 debut by a local act since the last NZ Idol Matt Saunoa’s Hold Out ruled for a solitary frame in November 2006. That was pre the digital download era.
    The Naked And Famous is the first local group to make the top first week since October 2006 when radio station The Edge’s survey contest-manufactured Boyband ruled for a week with The Kinks’ remake You Really Got Me. Leaving the marketing department bands out of the equation, it’s a remarkable 16 years since a New Zealand band had a #1 single debut – the Don MacGlashan-led The Mutton Birds jumped straight to the summit week of issue in February 1994 with The Heater.

  30. Marty Jones says:

    From what i’ve heard the singer’s ego is out of control. I think it’s great that a NZ band is blowing up on the world stage like this but to think that they’ve gotten to where they are by themselves is straight up moronic. I think it’s definitely a selective memory going on, they’re never going to look good if they told the true story i.e. screwing over Round Trip Mars after years of hard work and investment to go with the country’s biggest management firm and also having government funding helping them every step of the way.

    Ultimately New Zealand artists ahould be proud that we have a funding scheme on offer at all, because the majority of the world doesn’t have that luxury.

  31. Samuel says:

    I don’t know if what he said was all that bad. A bit misleading, a bit stink for all the people who have supported them maybe, but interviews are universally weird and the wrong thing pops out peoples mouths almost non stop. Press in the UK, Europe and the states are quite often interested in NZONAIR though. I have been asked about it numerous times, and the old pace scheme. They are quite hard subjects to talk about on the fly when you haven’t got figures in front of you and you don’t want to give the wrong impression either way.

    TNAF have always had a slightly cocky attitude, and it doesn’t sit well with me or many people I know. But it’s kinda their shtick, isn’t it? And lets face it, the success of that single was pretty amazing, wether you like it or not. I mean, it was on Gossip Girl….GOSSIP GIRL!

  32. The Only one who seems cocky to me is Tom… The rest seem fine. Not having meet them all I cannot say for sure though.. I will say.. Someone should get the bass player drunk, cut those horrible locks off when he falls aspleep, and then when he goes to leave tell him he’s forgotten somthing (give him back his hair)

  33. Chelsea says:

    lol i called that gossip girl thing when i reviewed the single

  34. Vaginanonymous says:

    “Some people might use ‘self-funded’ to mean ‘not beholden to a big record company’,” Smyth said, “and that’s true for them.” – Brendan Smyth

    Uh, they are on Universal in America and NZ.

    • they are on Universal Republic in America (same as Savage) and are on their own label “Somewhat Damaged” distributed by universal in Nz. The same sorta ‘deal’ as other Nz bands like Collapsing Cities (own label pastel pistol), Cut off Your Hands (via issac promotions), Round Trip Mars artists such as SJD, James Duncan etc and a bunch of other smallish local artists.

  35. Kirk Harding says:

    I think the kid was merely trying to state that they did it on an indie label with a distribution deal via Universal. Which is true.

    And believe me when i state that i’m the last guy trying to defend these kids. I am after all a close friend of Stinky Jim’s who i feel should get more credit than he does in any and all discussions about the development of this act. His label did all of the heavy lifting in the early period of this bands career and he served up an alley-oop for Universal to dunk. But they choose to ignore that in any and all interviews. He somehow got omitted from their history.

    But these NZOA witch hunts have to stop. As soon as a media outlet mentions NZ taxpayer money our artists get nailed to a cross and hoisted over flames. It’s bullshit. The kid is in a band, He’s not a manager. And he shouldn’t have to shout out the NZ taxpayer in every interview.

    These guys are just proud that they went #1 on their own label and rightfully so. And for that he shouldn’t be burned at the stake.

    Love it or hate it, they are our #1 export right now. They are selling albums in most international markets and we should be proud of that, rather than looking for reasons to tear them down.

    • Yep,
      Problem is its just so dam boring when you are stuck on a little island in the colonies. What else is should one do with all their idle time.

      • Dan Taipua says:

        You and Kirk should probably declare your respective professional/commercial interests in this debate.

    • Does Jim have “sweet points” on their album?

      • Francesa says:

        He is mentioned in the “special thanks” on the inside of their album cover. I would like to ask whether Hussein might take a real step forward and actually interview The Naked and Famous himself – find out the real story – I bet there is another side to it – and print it word for word!! I mean has he actually ever spoken with them personally or professionally – although maybe professional would be a big ask.

      • matthew says:

        u know this isn’t THE LISTENER right???

  36. The Confessor says:

    TNAF are NAFF. . + Thom is complete TOSSPOT/WANKA/EGOMANIAC/GOT A CHIP ON HIS SHOULDER BOUT GETTING KICKED OUT OF MIDNIGHT YOUF/INDIES HASSLING HIM ONLINE. There I said it. Sorry about the caps. OUT.

  37. After reading this article originally & thinking how petty & unoriginal the argument was, I was SO pleased to see that indeed, it was a whole article written around a misquoted blurb. Lazy, lazy and extremely dull writing. Suffice to say this is my last time reading this site, cheers :)

  38. Coward Morrison says:

    RUH ROH

  39. Dan Taipua says:

    Wow, the BBC contacted The Herald directly to let them know about the misquote?

    Oh, the band’s management contacted The Herald to claim that they were misquoted, with no actual reference to a statement from the BBC itself.

  40. If you actually listened to the original interview you’d know they were talking about the single which they did fund themselves thus opening the doors for funding for album etc by NZ On Air. They’ve done more internationally in the last year than most bands that get funding, so money well spent. That was one interview out of how many they must do? I know I’d get bored of saying the same things over and over again. A case of bad journalism from here and NZ herald, when you can’t even get the quoted person correct you shouldn’t be writing about them.

    • matthew says:

      bro NO ONE is disputing whether they deserve funding or any of that. and if you knew anything about their history you’d know that they got funding well before young blood.

  41. Agree with Ryan..shabby writing & research in my opinion….This site is basically a place for a select group of people to bitch about stuff they dont like / nor know much about.

  42. I’ve updated the post with a link to the correction in the NZ Herald.

  43. Nice one Hussein – post their apology. You started this petty tall-poppy-syndrome post.

    • Francesa says:

      What about an apology from Hussein – seems to me this is where he has a chance to redeem himself. Surely a good lesson in doing one’s own research ie source the original interview (audio) and hear who was actually interviewed and how their response was worded. Even the wrong band member was quoted. Just saying that’s all!!

      • Hussein Moses says:

        Fair call Francesa – I’m still dubious about posting a correction when I haven’t yet heard from the band or their manager though, but I am happy to admit that the context of the interview could be taken differently (i.e that it was ‘Young Blood’ that was “self-made, self-produced, self-funded”, not their entire career up to that point). However, they’re a band that has been funded for two years previous to that single coming out (not to mention that they were on the Round Trip Mars label until just before then) and even mentioning being self-funded at that point still comes across underhanded.

        I should also mention that this wasn’t an attack at the band or NZ On Air. I’ve written about TNAF in a positive light on numerous occasions and the funding angle is especially relevant considering the changes which are about to take affect with NZoA. I’m glad that it created some coversation.

  44. matt says:

    no one cares about what happens in new zealand. your website is pointless :( i’m only saying this because i’m a friend of yours and i care :)

  45. You’ve got to consider the bigger picture here, folks.

    True, TNAF’s music is insipid pop, and they behave like pop divas, but the issues is whether – or not – they were ‘self funded’, as they clearly and unequivocally claim in the interview.

    Bearing in mind that NZoA funding derives at its base level from the taxpayer, then in the truest sense they WERE ‘self funded’. lol…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*