Posts by Nick D'Angelo
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
No, Dale Evans is okay
Er ... the most polite thing I can say then is that he meeds more media training. Because he certainly didn't get any of his messages across. He simply came across as an idiot. And then to remove his Klan hood to reveal 'blackface' .... oh ... my ... gawwwwdddddd!
-
And some of the plotlines in Sunday's Ugly Betty ep advanced pretty quickly too. It won't be long before everyone just gets their TV off the web.
(oh, ... already happening) -
Wow! Where in the world would you get the head of a govt funding agency personally entering an online debate? We can't be doing too bad if Brendan is willing to speak himself, and not send in a minion. I know Dubmugga and Robbery are hot on this subject but can we at least acknowledge:
if only those pesky visa requirements didn't get in the way. a little embarrassing.
embarrassing yes, but not really NZOA's job is it?
I doubt they've ever applied for anything but unfortunately that's the feeling for most of the bands down here, they don't consider that anyone will help so they keep their heads down play gigs to their friend and vanish into thin air, another kiwi classic lost.
Again, unfair on NZOA to expect them to fund an act that hasn't applied for funding. NZOA does not charge around the countryside on a white horse delivering cash to needy and deserving minstrels. Quietly doing your thing, not making a fuss, building up some 'underground' cred, international recording contract ... one of these things does not follow. (Acknowledged: Some artists don't want international success, fair enough)
Surely artistic values of a leading production company should count for something rather than just airplay potential.
So nevermind it's a shit tune, the video is going to be amazing because Chris Cunningham has agreed to direct it? You're confusing NZOA with Creative NZ or the Film Fund.
Re: Fat Freddies..I have to re-iterate the above statement..if radio hadn't had the nous to pick a track off a crossover 45,000 selling album by the stage it got to that level, there is something wrong.
Too true, and it validates Roberry & Dubmugga's concern that NZOA need to be more accountable. But Radio have never been that smart. Crowded House had to go Top 5 in the US before NZ Radio would play them.
Fast crew anyone ???
Personally I liked them. They were no more than they claimed to be: fun loving (white?) suburban pop rap. They did quite well in Australia too. Where are they now? I dunno, but where are Supergroove and Straitjacket Fits? Getting funded does not oblige a band to stay together.
-
Sounds interesting. I'll wiki/google that tonite ...
-
eh? Stay on topic.
During Family Bingo Night at Club Med recently we would invariably get some teen scalliwag (sans parents) yelling out 'Bingo!' and pretending they'd won and slowing down the whole game. Unfortunately for them the staff had a counter measure. Anyone calling 'Bingo!' maliciously was met with a chorus of "In the pool! In the pool!" and they were thrown in (fully clothed). Not quite the offline equivalent of 'Theatre' but ...
-
tomorrow's headline today ...
Vodafone Exec Slams Dixon Success
Not quite up there with Phil Goff, but if it's a slow news day!
:)
-
from the Radioscope link posted earlier:
RadioScope100 | May 18 2008
Duffy - Mercy
With a second week as the most-played track on New Zealand radio, Mercy by Duffy is a 'secret' no longer. It was for a long time though. When her manager, Jeannette Lee, co-owner of Rough Trade records and former member of PiL, got one of Duffy's demos she immediately snuck her into a studio for four years (don't worry, she was allowed out sometimes, it's not like that Austrian story or anything). Four years on, Rockferry is the result.
As I'm reading the stuff about Rough Trade/PiL I'm thinking "Wow", but then I read the Austrian reference I'm thinking "Ew".
I've crossed the line many times myself for 'humour' but that really isn't funny if you think about it for two seconds. Who wrote that blurb?
-
income splitting is under consultation at the moment: personally I think children should come with a tax allowance that can be allocated to one or both parents as long as they live with them. We could wind back a chunk of WFF if we had it.
According to the latest NBR, Helen Clark has dismissed the idea already, saying that their concern is for people on low and modest incomes. All very nice in an election year but disappointing that she should dismiss the report 2 days after the IRD released it.
For people who don't know what income splitting is (and I hadn't given it a thought until I saw the NBR article - pg 21, May 23 '08) it means couples can split their combined incomes and the pay tax on that amount. Which means if one partner earns $70k and the other stays home and earns nothing they'd both be taxed at the $35k rate. Under current tax rates this would leave the couple paying $5k less in tax.
It's interesting that if a couple splits the assets and income are combined and each party gets a 50/50 split in the eyes of the law. But under current tax law a married couple are considered separate and each person is taxed individually.
Income splitting would make it easier for couples to decide whether its worth someone staying home to raise the children (and/or possibly working part time). Slarty has raised the idea of adding dependent children into the mix, which I think is a good one, although I worry it will muddy the waters. -
The wimmin have presided over a regime that has seen working class women loaded down with ever more paid & unpaid work and responsibility. Their reward is a lifestyle no better than my mother enjoyed, in mid 20thC in a state house as a stay at home mum.
So you're in favour of a return to the times when Mum stayed home, looked after the kids, and had tea and slippers ready for when Dad came home from a hard days yakka?
These days if women want to work and have kids they can at least look forward to a higher minimum wage, WFF, and paid parental leave. Your points re redressing the balance for the poor and beneficiaries are valid, however I think the Clarke-steered Labour Govt has chosen to sail a course (in the past 9 years) that ensures they don't get chucked out at the next election. By aiming to please the lower to middle classes I think they've been able to acheive more for everyone than they would have if they'd painted themselves into a corner by being the Dole Party.
Call me a contrairian but I'm begining to wonder if Cullen's Budget has stymied National and when they finally 'reveal all' they will be seen to be under-dressed. Not quite naked, but enough for Labour to just squeak back in (in an 'Italian coalition' ie NZ First, Maori, and Greens).
-
The Nats proposing a public referendum seems a small threat to democracy.
Weren't we promised one by rights, when we first voted on changing the voting system anyway? I'd much prefer STV, and I doubt there'd be a majority for a return to FPP. MMP really does allow parties-of-one (or two) too much sway in Govt.