BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


On the bankrupcy of music versus music videos

 
 
Tom Coates
12:59 / 03.09.02
In the spirit of the Royksopp video for "Remind Me" comes a new infographically inspired video for a song by Legowelt. As videos become more and more spectacular and sophisticated (Michel Gondry's work being particularly astonishing), I increasingly begin to wonder about the music that they are being attached to. Surely the songs cannot cost that much to assemble or perform? Certainly nowhere near as much as the videos must cost to make. Has the promotional device outstripped the product in creativity and artistic value?
 
 
No star here laces
14:54 / 03.09.02
This is interesting in relation to pop vs 'authentic' music. Pop has always required contextual backup for its full effect - 'Kiss Kiss' gains so much because you know who Holly Valance is, and that she's pretending to be naked in the video. The reason so much rock is so tedious is precisely because it refuses to embrace these sorts of games.

My favourite bit of music video adding to the song was George Michael's 'Outside' when they're in the public toilet and then the urinals rotate into the wall and the disco ball drops down and George is dressed up as a police officer being lewd with a truncheon. Fucking genius - in order to appreciate this, you have to know that he's just been arrested for a sex act in a public toilet, that this was the moment he came out and that he's referencing this directly not just in the title of the song, but in the fact that it's the first upbeat thing he's released in years thus signalling what a relief it is for him. But, crucially, I think it still hinges around the song - the video would have been meaningless without his change in musical direction.

I think songs with videos will always be more interesting than songs on the radio. But you need the song. Plus a song with cultural context e.g. uk garage compensates for lack of video with rich cultural cues - presence on pirate radio, being played on a club soundsystem that can actually accomodate the bass on the record, the presence of threatening cracked-out yardies, etc. etc.

So, no, I think you'd have to be fundamentally disinterested in music to find videos on their own more interesting than songs.
 
 
Tom Coates
15:51 / 03.09.02
But it is true, is it not, that songs with videos are better than songs by themselves (assuming of course that both song and video are of good quality), and that more to the point often in these circumstances, they don't form a functioning mutually reinforcing gestalt, but the video is clearly of significantly greater art, intelligence and skill (and often beauty) than the song. So while you wouldn't want the video without the song, it would be fair to say that increasingly it's the dominant partner in the relationship...
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
16:19 / 03.09.02
It varies. I think in one of the Eminem threads I said that his songs were generally extremely dull without the videos, I'm thinking of that 'guess who's back' one in particular. Travis or Coldsore on the other hand, are just the opposite, together or seperate, the songs are shit and so are the videos (though I thought the 'Flowers in the Window' video would have been ace with some chilled out dub or somat).

Is it a coming of age thing? Twenty odd years ago people involved in making pop videos were doing something new that was seen as less important to the product, the people doing the videos now have grown up with the idea of a video as automatic, so tending to put more effort in it?
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
16:41 / 03.09.02
Tom, what videos are you talking about? It sounds like you are talking about a handful of very specific videos in a broad way that makes it very hard for me to understand where you are coming from.

Even though the number of videos made now is significantly less than the number made about ten years ago (thanks to the constantly shrinking playlists of videos outlets on television), there are still a LOT of videos being made. I see a fair few of them, from watching MTV and its sister channels, on artist's websites, on sites like Sputnik7.

In my experience with videos, very few of them are very good, and it's more common for me to see a video for a song that I like that I find disappointing, if not entirely lacking in quality.

Thinking about it right now, I can't think of very many videos that I enjoy more than the song it is promoting - a few Bjork videos, maybe a Daft Punk video or something like that. There's a really scary (and lo-fi) video for an obscure Sonic Youth song that I've never been fond of on the band's website - I certainly like that video more than the song ("MacBeth"). I can't think of many occasions when a song that I like gets upstaged by a superior video. I'm drawing a blank right now, anyway.

I think those video directors who consistently create strong, compelling work are rare - for every Michel Gondry videos, there's a hundred dull, formulaic, unmemorable videos. More often than not, most of the videos that are on the air in the US are just that, and they increasingly look more and more like Levis and Pepsi ads.

So, again - what videos are you talking about? I just don't think there's enough decent (and most of all POPULAR) videos to support claims of the music videos are becoming a higher art than the music. And surely when you speak of the "music", you do limit yourself strictly to "the kind of music that videos are made for", and not the entirety of contemporary music, yes?
 
 
Spatula Clarke
20:07 / 03.09.02
But it is true, is it not, that songs with videos are better than songs by themselves

On what evidence? That's a statement that really needs something to back it up.

I do think there are definite instances where a video can greatly enhance the enjoyment of a song, the most obvious examples being the Gorillaz singles. At first, before having seen the vids, I was very much unmoved by the songs. They need Hewlett's visuals. Hearing, say, 19-2000 now, the experience is shaped by my memory of the video. The song only really works when it's got the daft, brilliant cartoon behind it. I think it's entirely likely that the album as a whole would be a lot more satisfying if it had been similar in execution to the Super Furry's Rings Around The World DVD.

That said, Gorillaz are an extreme case, their whole raison d'etre being the idea that they're a group made up of cartoon characters. The visuals are an integral part of the premise.

There's a fundamental difference between visual and audio entertainment that needs to be considered. You can listen to a record or the radio and still give part of your concentration over to something else without compromising either activity (much as I'm currently typing this out while also listening to a CD). Watching a music video, your eyes have to stay on the screen. You're far more limited in what other activities you can carry out at the same time. It's probably for this reason that a song with a video can sometimes seem more dynamic than one without.

As a side-issue, this all crosses over neatly with something I've just started getting more interested in - videogame music. I've currently got some of the best game soundtracks on order. This is music that - within the context of the games - works fantastically, helping to provide the impetus to the visual action. We're talking mainly about games where the sound is easily of equal importance in the creation of mood and a believable universe as the visuals - Jet Set Radio, for example, where the pop/hip-hop tracks are a fundamental part of the world the game's set in. There are also games which are entirely centred around the idea of player participation with the soundtrack - Bemani titles like Samba de Amigo, Space Channel 5, Bust a Move, Dance Dance Revolution, etc.

The point here is that, while the music works brilliantly while you're playing the game and are subject to the accompanying visuals and active involvement, I've got no idea how well it works purely as audio entertainment, once the rest of the experience is stripped away. Which, er, kind of makes that entire last paragraph redundant. Once I get a hold of the soundtracks I'll comment a bit more on that particular issue. I'm sure most people read the word 'videogames' and skipped the rest, anyway.

I can't see it making a massive amount of difference to the enjoyment of the music for its own sake, however - videogame soundtracks aren't that far removed from film soundtracks. Listening to Once Upon a Time in the West, for example, it's nearly impossible for me to separate the music from what I know of the film, what's happening in it while that particular track is playing. The impact of videos on singles is very similar - listen to ...Baby One More Time and try not to remember the video. Point is, it doesn't distract from that song in any way whatsoever when you hear it without having the video playing in front of you, nor, I'd imagine, would the song sound any less 'artistic' (bleurgh) to someone who'd never seen the video - the exact same applies to the Once Upon a Time... album. It's a different thing from Gorillaz.

Which is why you can't really go making as broad a generalisation as you have in your first post, Tom. Some singles are damned forever to be remembered fondly only because of the video that went with them. Some exist without any visual promotion at all. Most sit nicely in the middle of that distinction.

By the way, can we impose a forum-wide ban on the use of nebulous terms like "of significantly greater art," "artistic value," and the old classic, "artistic integrity,"?
 
 
The Return Of Rothkoid
00:51 / 04.09.02
Just a quick reply, as am at work at the moment, but I have to disagree with the main thrust of what you're saying, Tom. I agree, videos are getting more spectacular - or hell, just more interesting - but it's really not a matter of cost of vid versus cost of tune in a sort of x against y scenario. True, there's some where the conceit works brilliantly - "Outside" being one - and there's some where the entire feel of the song is encapsulated perfectly (ie: NIN's "Closer" filmclip is much sexier than pro-toolin' Trent on his ownsome) - but I think they tend to be subject to the law of diminishing returns far more quickly than the songs themselves.

In certain circumstances, as I think Flux has kinda indicated, the video can be a disappointment, or can detract from the song. Often, a lame-ass filmclip (hello, lazy "live in concert" shots) will make me think less of the tune. It's stupid, but it does.

To play populist, I think of Michael Jackson's videos: they're consistently lauded for their innovation (at time of release), and in terms of the cost, they pretty much outstrip the record costs; there's phenomenal amounts spent on then-cutting-edge tech for them, but they seem, to my mind, to be naught but status-symbol baubles to a certain extent. Take something like "Scream", say. I'd rather hear the tune (that cunning bit where the chorus kicks up is a hook to kill for) than see the video. MJ destroying things in space? Doesn't appeal. But the song? Yeah. And that's the crux, I think - with videoclips, you're constrained by what the director wants you to think of the song - but when a song's on your headphones or whatever, it maps over into what you're doing with your life. It becomes a soundtrack to what you're doing, not just a storyboard.

But maybe I'm just a fan of that feeling. I enjoy old filmclips for their archival, "what the fuck were they on?" value (Bowie's "Sorrow" and The Rolling Stones' "2000 Light Years From Home" spring to mind) and some others because they tickle me. But I don't think they supplant the song in any way. Manufactured pop and image may have made the confluence of the two more important, but it's not changed - for me - the fact that the song comes first.
 
 
Saveloy
09:55 / 04.09.02
Tom:
"Has the promotional device outstripped the product in creativity and artistic value?"

As far as creativity goes I wouldn't be at all surprised if it had. The reasons being:

No one takes it particularly seriously - I'm with Dali when he says: "Taste is the enemy of creativity." Unlike music and film, there are no fans to let down, no army of hyper critical smart-arses with agendas to worry about. In short, no one in the audience bothered enough to set artificial limits on what can be done (which is what taste is all about). As long as the only people who take the form seriously enough to invest emotionally and intellectually in it are the creatives themselves then creative freedom will be as great as it can be within the usual limits of budget and law. As soon as widely-read publications start carrying regular, serious columns about it, it'll be f***ed.

Technology - I'm a bit iffy on this one, but I suspect that the tools available to video artists are continuing to develop in ways that widen their horizons, by adding not only to the ease with which existing things can be done (greater memory and speed, for instance) but to the range of things that can be done. I suspect that music software reached the point a few years ago where increases in capacity, speed and ease of manipulation etc had little added benefit (but I might well be talking out of my arse). The other possibility is that the video technology has been there ages but reduction in costs = more people using it = greater chance of groovy things being done. Again, a situation the music world was in several years ago.

Not having to care about sales For video artists to attract customers, they just need to be noticed. If the records they promote don't sell particularly well, they don't care, because they get paid a one-off fee (yes?) and they can blame the song. This removes the need to be conservative or satisfy a particular market.
 
 
Tom Coates
17:04 / 09.09.02
Ok. I've been a bit slack, but I'm going to have a serious think and come back on this one later in the evening or tomorrow morning. Don't anyone go anywhere...
 
  
Add Your Reply