the challenge: finish up their video. download their green-screened performance here, read the info here, enter the contest and get famous (not). you have until december 15th. ps: steven colbert is upping the ante: add his greenscreen into their scenery and get twice as famous (not not).

UPDATE: the decemberists administer colbert some of his own medicine. no decency limit yet to viacom's cross-promotional glee...

         

Interesting promotional idea from Capitol. I wonder who "directed" the green screen shoot.

Clearly the industry is REALLY valuing the contributions of directors about now. If this helps Capitol get attention for the band they can do a "Hands on the digi-cam" contest where prospective directors stand outside the Capitol Tower for days on end - trying to keep one hand on a Sony three-chipper in order to win the "honor" of spending $11k on the next Chingy video.

Obviously I was wrong about the ceiling.

         

It would appear the footage is from this:

www.videostatic.com

I am sure there is a story behind it...

         

I really feel like this is the Middle Ages of the record industry. The file-sharing plague hit and now everyone is scrambling around like a fief with his head cut off. Although this video IS sort of depressing, I don't think this'll ever be a standard mode of operation. It's cool to try stuff like this now because it's kind of weird and different, but will this sort of approach still be intereresting to fans in 2008? Of course not. I still think that you're average music lover longs to see their favorite bands in videos that actually look like time, thought, and money were invested.

         

Spit: I'm interested in whether "time, though, and money" might actually work against you in the near future.

The web (youtube especially) is such a wide open forum that it seems you do not get rewarded for exacting work. It's better if it's sloppy and quick, like anyone could do it.

That way the viewer (the rater and the future author) can imagine doing it themselves and getting attention for it, whereas when they see a work that takes skill or labor they can not vicariously place themselves in the role of author.

         

I will wholeheartedly agree that the present state of music videos is not too hot. But are record companies completely letting go of the idea of videos as a promotional tool? Obviously not, as the actual volume of videos being made every month aren't going down. However, the way things are right now with 1) the labels ability to recoup in days where soundscans are dwindling 2) the lack of any real way to ensure widespread viewing of any video (outside of your Ushers and Justins), means that budgets aren't going to be where we want them, and making a living off of shooting videos is going to be rough. That's the reality. However, I refuse to accept the following two premises:

1. People will never make big money off of music again. As long as there is recorded music, people will want to own it, and as long as there's a demand, dudes in suits will find a way to make money off of it. Already, several companies are restructuring their business models to function as more of a promotion/management entity than a distribution/retail.

2. People no longer watch/care about music videos. If anything, people probably see more music videos now than ever. Labels still know that a good music video is one of their best assets in promoting an artist. Furthermore, fans demand videos. It helps them to put their favorite rock stars in their proper context, and it gives the artist personality (sometimes where there isn't really any) and a visual iconography.

That being said, it ill be rough for a while. But as youtube has already proven, big changes can happen practically overnight in the age of the internet.

         

"As long as there is recorded music, people will want to own it"

Sure, but what if "owning it" doesn't cost anything, as it does now?

There will be management companies, sure, but when you take away the ability to sell records and cds you lose a giant chunk of your income. Will money be made? Sure. Big money? I don't think so.

It's hard to put the seizmic change in context, but it's climatic, and the way people cling to the old model does not bode well for how we will handle the larger climatic change (70 degrees today in NYC and it's almost Decemeber).

         

It seems that home taping is still killing music!

But I think the budget issue is possibly a question of rising supply, rather than falling demand.

Think where digital video cameras and affordable hardware / software solutions were ten years ago and I think it's obvious why budgets have plummeted. There's a glut of directors around who have taught themselves and can cover many bases from producing, directing through editing and post, working on prosumer cameras and home computers.

If you factor in a current vogue for lo-fi aesthetics (probably from the same origin) and YouTube's current 'too hot to handle' status and hey presto!

Creatively on the other hand, it seems there's a lot of interest in music video and lots of good stuff being made.

The only thing that dismays me is that given the low financial stakes involved that there aren't more bands / labels making interesting work.

Nothing ventured, nothing gained... and all that.

         

coady: surely if owning it (recorded music) didn't cost anything, there wouldn't be a whole lot of recorded music.

Such is capitalism.

         

benroll: that's an interesting comment. That's what a square congressmen might tell you while defending the RIAA.

That thought is predicated on the notion that if you can't make money doing something, it won't get done, and that is the lie underlying life on earth right now.

Artists have made, are making and will continue to make recorded music without a sliver of hope of making money off it. They do it because they love making music and just because they won't get rich, or even make a living off of it, doesn't mean they'll stop.

Such is life.

         

There's more green screen contests like this coming. I heard one for Incubus is on the way.

         

coady: Your 'square congressman' comment is pretty harsh and misunderstands my attitude completely.

For the record, I spend my life making stuff that barely earns me a living. I'm well aware of the drive, rationale and hardships of working for the love of it.

My comment is not predicated on the generic notion that if you can't make money doing it, it won't get done. It comments that if corporations can't make money doing it, then music will not be widely recorded and distributed in the way it currently is.

The alternative is a return to a musical cottage industry, based around local live performance and amateur recordings. At the bottom end of the 'industry' this is currently alive and well and one of the more interesting places to hear music - so no bad thing perhaps.

However, the very recent idea of recording and distributing your own work outside of your local area relies not only on graft, but on a pre-established infrastructure of technology and communication. There is an argument that corporations have exploited this tendency and individual makers undermine themselves by acting alone.

My comment about capitalism, is more or less a truism. It is not a defence of capitalism.

         

ok, benroll, didn't mean to be harsh and I don't doubt your commitment to art, which makes what you said before even a little more surprising to me.

recording costs have dropped like a rock in the last two decades and distribution is as easy as posting in on the internet. we can talk advertising and marketing and all that junk but what I've said remains true.

when you talk about distributing your own work outside your local are relies on graft, what do you really mean? I ask that honestly. Is the goal to become big, like the Flaming Lips or Justin Timberlake?

I think alot of the conversation going on these days doesn't take into account the intent and desire of where your art can go.

we were brought up in the shadow of dylan and lennon, a time when really great artists captured the center of a centered (or mono) culture.

I don't see a center anymore.

in short, I'm as lost as anyone in this flat land, but I'm at least pretty sure there's no mountain to climb.

         

I don't think recorded music should be free. This reflects my belief that musicians should be able to make their living from their talent like anyone else.

At present, this tends to require the distribution and sale of recorded music on a significant enough scale to make it more than a hobby.

All of the industry, promotion, advertising and marketing junk seems to be what it takes to make us consensus driven creatures get off our arses and visit a gig or obtain a recording. That is the graft. That is the cost. I don't say it's right.... it's just an observation.

---

I take on board your comments about grand narratives and a centreless culture. Your last sentence is eloquently put, btw.

But I fear that if we don't build some mountains of our own, they will be built for us and they will be made of trash.

I'm not sure what the answer is either.

         

otaku-house, this is clearly not about the Decemberists anymore. Sorry to take up the space, but this is where the conversation began.

As for the larger issues, they deserve a lot more thought - it's a conversation that is so fractured it's hard to get a location on it (it's also a pet peeve of mine when people tell me I'm overthinking - especially when I see the resulting carelessness of people who don't).

Benroll, I understand you don't think recorded music should be free and I guess I agree with that in a way, but it just seems like a fact now, and will become even moreso with the rise of cheap hard drives.

Rather than focus on deriving worth from monetary caculus, why not shift it to one that has nothing to do with money. Would it be so horrible to have the respect and ears of your peers, work a day job and be part of a larger discussion that is unrelated to an industry? This is something that Fugazi, for whatever their limits were otherwise, managed to do: change the rules to define sucess by their own terms.

So, I agree, let's build a mountain - let's just try to make sure this time it's not built on cash, because in the end all that profit are those in the suits.

         

'A map of the world that does not include Utopia is not worth even glancing at, for it leaves out the one country at which Humanity is always landing.' - so said Mr. Wilde.

Any tentative steps towards a utopia need to be circumspect though and take into account the point from which we set off as well as the destination. Historically, sudden bids for utopian visions have resulted in violence and hardship on unimaginable scales.

So I'm with you in theory, if not entirely in practice, specifically because the concept of money as an arbitrary symbol of worth is here to stay (imho).

Although we've wandered a bit off-topic here, I think this is a discussion worth having. I'd suggest that rationalising things to their final (and often paradoxical) conclusions can seriously underpin more intuitive judgement.... even when the rationale breaks down or leads nowhere.

This is my last post on this topic, 'cos I've got a shed load of work to do. Good talking to you coady.

         

Likewise, benroll.

         

winning greenscreen valencia here.

flv link, anyone?

         

videos.antville.org