The State of Music Video
An interesting article on the state of music video now by Creative Review, mentioning the difficulties of music video directors in getting proper budgeting, ownership of ideas and many other topics...
The current world of mv's simply doesn't allow for the kind of work that this site was originally intended to celebrate. Imagine if Spike Jonze had been born 15 years later- "sorry Spike, not only is the budget too small for us to set the guy on fire, it doesn't even allow for a location, extras, or a high speed camera... I guess you'll just have to shoot Wax in front of a green screen and beg your computer nerd friends to throw in some random AE effects..."
Until something is done about the system, directors and production companies will get ripped off, labels will make money off of our free ideas, and mv's will never get better than mediocre.
(erm, you're not helping your yelp by mentioning what was probably the lowest-budget video ever shot by jonze.) great article. sounds like th' biz is reaching some sort of tipping point. this might contribute to that.
I think it's a myth that there was ever money in music videos, except 1998-2000. Sure, at any given time, there's that 10% of videos that are the Madonnas and David Finchers. But remember, Jonze and Gondry were born out of that mid-90s alternative boom. Have you ever watched those old 120 minutes videos? Most of them are just bands in rooms with color effects and cut to some stock footage.
Overall, I'd say your AVERAGE video now is better than it was 10 years ago; cause post effects have gone way down. There's always going to be great directors and great work, there's always going to be crap.
Captainmarc22: thanks, mine's long winded but I believe the point's the same. I think you're right. The vast majority of film work in general has been historically made on the cheap (cheap as possible anyway) & most people mistake notoriety for financial success. One does not insure the other. In fact it often seems that one is traded for the other. Music is probably even worse in this regard than the film industry. As far as MV in general, there is certainly plenty of "crap" now but mostly what I've noticed is a real boom of mediocre videos. Lot's of things that look nice but really just don't go anywhere or climax. I think this is also due to more accessible technology & many more people wanting to make things.
I recently watched this video review show from '89 or so & Duran Duran was explaining how there Rio videos while shot on location in Sri-Lanka were actually made rather cheaply over a three day stop over in route to the start of their an Australian tour. The production costs for the location were actually cheap considering the effect of the location shots, video was just emerging in America & the whole thing was more or less an experiment proposed by Russel Mulcahy as way to push the medium & sell the band to Americans.
I am NOT a film, video, or technical professional of any kind. I do however have some training in the field & have a limited production background.I HAVE been a music fan, record buyer, & record store keeper of one kind or another for sometime now.
I also AM & have been an admirer / observer of the music video since the early eighties & the arrival of MTV. I have also helped produce a local music video show at one point & for the last five years have taken upon myself to become a club style MUSIC VIDEO DJ with a twice weekly 4 hour music video set. This came about because I missed the video format clubs of the eighties where I was first exposed to so many great bands that there was little to no real outlet for at the time & a belief that music video at it's best is a very pure form of expressive medium. There is a wealth of images & artists that the majority of people do not even know exist & I wanted to exhibit this to people for the sake sharing. I also felt a real vindication was in order for the creators of these 3 1/2 min. wonders. They at least deserved to be brought out & seen. What is the point of art if it's never seen? However at it's heart a music video is a commercial. A commercial for a song. That is to say THAT is it's intended & practical function, right?
So, why should these highly effective commercials for a $10 to $20 dollar hunk of plastic, or pile of files be any different from a 30 second spot for a seven dollar pack of paper you use to wipe your butt that probably had three times the budget? It just doesn't make sense. Unless you consider the stakes. There is actually more money in toilet paper than record sales & certainly more of a demand than music videos.
I do not get or bother seeking ANY support from labels of any kind at this point. I do it of my own volition. Why? Because I could not find any contact information for rep.s readily available, of the few I could make contact with I was met with suspicion or muddled indifference as they were usually too busy drinking on a company tab, attending some lame meet & greet with an artist no one was ever going to see or care about. Most could not understand the concept of presenting music video in a live environment & knew nothing about music video within there company at all except that they had "This cassette in my closet, I have a bunch. I just have my intern clean it out every couple of months. We usually just wind up throwing 'em away." True story. I also just decided that it would ultimately be far easier to start gathering the sources from where I could & simply eliminate the droll task of trying to keep up with whatever crap was coming down the pipe from the labels to ensure keeping label people happy, which I really didn't care about in the first place.
It seems to me that like most complex situations there are multiple facets at work in this situation. Although I believe the labels to be the grubby, mostly clueless, glut makers they are they simply would not be able to exploit artists the way that they do if there were not so many willing participants.
Artists WANT to make art, the labels realize this & exploit it. It is set up to be a supposedly mutually beneficial proposition for all involved. But we all realize it's not. Songwriters are forced to sell there work away in exchange for exposure. Why would a video director be any different?
While I realize it is easier said than done, isn't time for the artist to simply say NO! "I'm the creator, you want me to do something to benefit you, you simply MUST pay for it." Why should the producer of the work see the smallest portion for the actual effort? Now more than ever it is possible for artists to get exposure on they're own. It is time for labels & those contracting the work to get paid like the delivery boys they really are & that means they get the small fee & make it up in numbers if that's the service they wish to provide. Fuck 'em. No pay no product. That's simply how commerce works. Compensation for goods & services. They know that too, so turn the screws. "If you want Jimmy to make you a cute little video with that new camcorder & film degree, go ahead. If you want skill & imagination, it'll cost." Besides the labels have a far better chance of reaping long term residuals even on the smallest percentages though compilations, anthologies, etc.
It's time for THEM to get royalties for there menial co-ordinating tasks they performed 10 years ago. They can make it up a nickel a play like every artist they've brought before us, so many of which we could probably all live without. They can make it up by providing more artists & being attentive to niches & trends like every other business in the world has to do. Gone are the indulgent days of buying up every garage band in Seattle, flooding the market with hopefuls, & then keeping the three that succeed. Not to mention the tax write offs for the "losses". Don't get me wrong, they can still manufacture all the dross they want, that will never change. But those consumers are not music people & do not go back to buy Bobby Sherman records & they will NOT be coming back for Britteny or Beyonce re-mastered retrospectives in the years ahead. If they want music & and artistry, they can get re-acquainted with the concept of cultivation & waiting it out. It'll cost & they will have to pay dues Like you & I. The truth is the world probably NEEDS anther band, video, advertisement or movie like we need more ozone emissions.
Recently a group of guys asked me to do visuals for their "night". It was a tentative arrangement in that they had been given the space & if the night was successful they would be given a budget. That was in June, the nights were successful, but now in October the club still is not providing the budget. The guys still want to continue for their own reasons, mostly status & social. I have had to explain to them that I could no longer put my time & energy into the night if there were not going to be some type of tangible incentive. Not because I didn't like the night or because I didn't like making visuals, In fact I was flattered & really appreciated the catalyst to explore that element of my creative abilities. I loved the fact that people were impressed by the work. It really just came down to the effort not being justified for me. Although I enjoyed it, I literally could not afford the time & energy involved with providing art for arts sake to simply enhance the overall aesthetic vision they had. I would like to, but it really needs to be self supporting if not gainful in some way. That's business.
Why should artists, this means video producers, sell themselves short for the idea of the big break. Mostly it's a lie or perhaps myth to be fair, but one they'll be happy for you to believe in.
If you want to do a video as a freebie for a pal or to start a reel, cool. But if you know they can pay, isn't it up to you to get it or decline?
As much as I appreciate the efforts of those on this site, the true fact of the matter is MOST people just don't seem to care who made the video. I get asked who an artist is frequently, in five years I have had perhaps three inquiries about who a video was directed by. You guessed it, those were Gondry, Cunningham, & Corbijn and mostly these were people wanting to know if they were right. I have to tell people that Bill Paxton directed the FISH HEADS video or that Jarvis Cocker directed that NICK CAVE video. You would think that a bunch self proclaimed PULP fans would find that interesting, not so much.
The point is you're behind the scenes, where you have chosen to be, where it counts. You have decided to go for the that subtle satisfaction not the glory of recognition. That's why you're behind the camera, with the real work of making these three chord wonders look good or at least not so goofy.
Make sure that you get the proper compensation. MAKE THEM PAY UP FRONT, because people probably won't be stopping you very often to ask if you're the one who thought of setting that little unicorn on fire or retouched MC Hoody Knobihn's grotesque mole. The people who seek these services are the only ones who need to know your name & the idea is to have them respect your abilities. Give it away or compromising your standards is no way to get that respect.THEY need you more than you NEED them.
Music, film, & all forms of art will continue to be made without Sony, Columbia, or any corporate support at all. In fact real creativity would more than like benefit greatly from such a demise. It will continue to be seen without them as well. A life of artistic satisfaction has nothing to with the earning of a living. You can make a living on craft however & there IS an art to plying a craft.
DON'T WORK FOR FREE. It's just a dumb concept, not to mention an erroneous one to preform a charitable or cut rate act for any commercial enterprise, with the expectation that it will really benefit you somehow. If you walked into a bank & a loan officer wanted to borrow money from you... When have the labels EVER given anyone a break?
If you do something because you want to express a creative or inspired vision of some sort as an artist, perhaps like most artists your solace may need to be in having had the chance to do it at all.
Sorry for the ramble, but we're talking about making music videos. It will probably never be the best or easiest way to make money. Statistically your better off framing up rolls of TP.
Excellent article, some good comments/discussion on the CR site too
Good show. I agree with most everything in the article. :) From my point of view I think we're headed towards a model where young versatile image makers will be hired directly by bands, in order to boost awareness in their music enough to get fans to fill their live appearances. The record companies will focus solely on distribution and accounting and the industry will have balance more creativity because of it.
jess: the outlook for prod co's (who will also increasingly be leapfrogged, as you say) is definitely not rosy. that's the vibe i took away from a lot of the quotes in the article. would be great to have some first-hand opinion on that here...
@ Hipgnosist: Thanks for taking the time to write up and post your comment. An interesting read. I agree with most of what was said. I'd especially like to think that directors wouldn't work for free unless it really was a labor of love.
Perhaps we all need a union? ;)
K
Progie, The fact that even Spike's lowest budgeted video is still way above the avg modern budget says something about our current situation (Additionally, I'd say that particular video is far more expensive than it looks. Spike was able to get a stunt guy w/pyro fx, shut down an entire block in the middle of los angeles, shoot on a high speed film camera, and work with an entire crew to effectively light and art direct the scene. I'd guess that they were working with at least 75k. Today a band like Wax would probably be working with 10k tops, which means none of that would be possible).
I'm not saying that good stuff isn't made anymore, but let's not ignore the fact that today's minuscule budget's are extremely difficult to work with.
