What Makes Music Videos Rock?

**MatJimMood** · August 13th, 2004, 09:35 AM

Originally posted by bigmasi:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Nigel:
Of course Music-Videos are ads...They sell the music but more importantly they sell the band and they sell an image of that band.

I think there is also music videos that are mostly "art" and not commercials... but you can never see them at commercial channels like MTV or MuchMusic. Why would you?<hr /></blockquote>(Sorry Nigel i guess everyone wasn't in agreement)

The music video promo is promoting a product for commercial gain therefore they are basically just commercials. Record labels don't spend money on music videos for no reason.

Even the music videos that are artistically credible and aren't shown very often can still be viewed as commercials, but ones that are only shown and appeal to a small demographic. Its just different ways of marketing a product.

**MatJimMood** · August 13th, 2004, 04:02 PM

Originally posted by nunquam:
When is a music video not a music video...when is it not an ad?

When the band creates the video on its own or in collaboration with a video artist? But then, does the venue in which it is presented affect it? I mean is it "art" if it is not shown on MTV, but once it is played on MTV it's "advertising"? If a studio or record label provides the funding, does that immediately invalidate it as a piece of "art"? If it is widely popular by a viewing audience, does that invalidate it as "artistic"?

[ August 13, 2004 12:47 PM: Message edited by: nunquam ]

i don't think you can really create a distinction between the music video as advertising and the music video as art.

they co-exist.

Just because something is popular or commercial doesn't mean it can't be appreciated as a piece of art.

whether or not the music video is seen by a large number of people it still doesn't remove the original intent to promote the band.

therefore the music video is a form of advertising and promotion.

**bigmasi** · August 13th, 2004, 07:03 PM

Well, I think most of the music videos are made for advertising the band (the brand), but there is a lot of bands that advertise them selves in a different way and are 0 percent dependent on videos... but they still do them. Maybe only for fun. And the record companies don't give them money for videos. When I say art/advertisement I mean this.

Of course all the videos are art (maybe I'll post a topic "define art?" later on), but the reason why a video was made makes a difference. Is it the art of selling something, art of lighting a scene very well, art of camerawork or art of directing or writing, or maybe it's the art of taking all the charm away from the artist by producing the video to over polished perfection (wich is allways bad for me)... I get the feeling in many music videos that they would have been a lot better if the purpose would have not been only to sell the product.

I was shooting a finish tv-program in Los Angeles about a year ago and we did an interview with one music video director. They were just softening the cheaks of this very beautiful 17 years old pop singer in photoshop. For me she looked perfect without any digital work..? And the stories the director told us (of the camera, of course *damn*) about the production of the videos. How they make the ass of Jennifer Lopez bigger or smaller depending the trend of the time or the audience that the video is pointed to. This might be some kind of art, but for me it's just shit. For me the art allways reflects the world somehow, but the commercial art (advertisement) is trying to change the way we see the reality and twist it to something that never exists... I don't know anymore what I'm saying because I totally lost my thought, because someone is sending me very disturbing messages in messenger... maybe you can tell me what I was saying *laughing* ...to be continued.

...I need a beer

**nunquam** · August 14th, 2004, 03:42 AM

When is a music video not a music video...when is it not an ad?

When the band creates the video on its own or in collaboration with a video artist? But then, does the venue in which it is presented affect it? I mean is it "art" if it is not shown on MTV, but once it is played on MTV it's "advertising"? If a studio or record label provides the funding, does that immediately invalidate it as a piece of "art"? If it is widely popular by a viewing audience, does that invalidate it as "artistic"?

Seems to me that if you are evaluating a video as one the "rocks" (as the thread began), or whether it is artistic/beautiful/entertaining/elightening or whatever, it should be based simply on the merit of the video itself and not just the funding source, parties involved or the marketing of it.

[ August 13, 2004 12:47 PM: Message edited by: nunquam ]

**thelaughingduck2001** · August 14th, 2004, 02:50 PM

yeah he's working on an adaptation of neuromancer.

Now, I'm sorry, but I can't see this happening.

Before anyone kills me, yes I know the book came first and the Wachowski Bros. stole from it, but Joe Public is not going to think that.

If I'm right, it's about a system called The Matrix that people plug in to, which is run by these Japenese hechmen in sharp suits (ahem, Agents) and one guy (with a silly code name, like NEO) decides to go in one final time and bring it down.

Yes, it's the wachowski Bros. that are in the wrong, but no one is going to want to see this unless it's substanially changed. Unless sci-fi fans. But, looking at what the budget might be, would that be able to pull in the big bucks. We all know what happened with The Matrix.

The Matrix-Edgy, paranoid sci-fi thriller. Groundbreaking. Appeals to all sorts.

The Matrix Reloaded-Everyone goes back. Alienates a lot of the first audience who weren't fanboys.

The Matrix Revolutions-First day. The few (not literally) remeaining supporters (and the loyal fanboys, although even some of them are left) go to see it. The second day. No one goes to see it (LOL)

**Nigel** · August 14th, 2004, 04:08 PM

"I believe entertainment can aspire to be art, and can become art, but if you set out to make art you're an idiot."--Steve Martin

Good Luck

**MatJimMood** · August 14th, 2004, 06:46 PM

Originally posted by thelaughingduck2001:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> yeah he's working on an adaptation of neuromancer.

Now, I'm sorry, but I can't see this happening.
<hr /></blockquote>yeah you're probably right

its a shame though. In my opinion cunningham is the most exciting and probably one of the most influential video artists around at the moment. Some of the stuff he's done is completely mind blowing.

One day he will make a feature film but hes definetly taking his time over it. THe last i heard he was spending more time making music

**miker** · August 14th, 2004, 10:17 PM

"Art is the lie that makes us realise the truth."

Thread: What Makes Music Videos Rock?

Thread Tools

Display

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions