Vid V. Clip V. Promo
Is anyone else bothered by music videos being called "clips" and "promos"?
Doesn't a "clip" connote that something is a truncated excerpt from a larger work?
And isn't a "promo" nothing more than an ad? I think we can safely say that most of us agree that a video is more than that.
Not sure why this bugs me, but it does.
I kinda know what you're saying...but really you have to keep in mind that they ARE promos for the band. I think 95% of people out there see the work as something FOR or BY the band and not something BY a certain director... (just us geeks)! I dont know where the 'clip' thing comes from though...haven't really thought about that.
uk: promo japanese: pv (=promovideo) french: clip plus countless other variations
tower of babel, winch - get used to't.
You're wrong. In French they're called "cleeps". : ) I don't really care that much one way or another. I'm just doing everthing I can to get out of doing work. Like picking fights with other clip-loving promo geeks.
I still don't buy the "promo" explaination. I'm sure that's where it comes from, but I think there's something derisive about the name. You don't call the album art a "billboard". Or when a radio station plays a band's song they don't call it a "radio ad".
We need a new name for music videos like...um...something cool with the word "extreme" in it. Like "Extreme Eyeball Blaster 3000". Something to be proud of, y'know.
Promo is pretty darn accurate. And like 'clip', is just an abbrevited way of saying 'promotional clip', which is what they used to be referred to as. Clip still works since the song is but a piece of the larger work (the album).
As for why that term works: It's work for which the band will not get paid (in fact, the budget usually comes out of their share of the cash, anyway), and serves no purpose except to promote the album. So yah, it's accurate.
Winch, your examples don't parse because the album is the work itself. Neither it nor the artwork is there to promote the band, in fact it's the other way around. The album the final product that's being presented for consumption. Similarly, playing a song on the radio isn't an ad; it's a both a sample and a seperate product unto itself.
It seems like you're taking umbrage because calling a video underscores the commercial side of music, while you see the video as an entity wholly removed from the musical process and worthy of it's own artistic merit. While I'll certainly agree that music promos can contitute art in and of themselves, one must remember that they exist to serve the song, not vice versa.
In Spain... Videoclip.
yawn
Sorry to bore you, Dom. I do think this is an interesting thought to parse out.
I think that the concept of video as advertising is unneccesary and that by propegating that stigma, it denegrates one of our most lively arts.
The fact that a record label pays for the video should not necessarily reduce it to crass commercialism either. Some of the greatest works in the Louvre were "commissioned works" serving overtly the patron (or client's) needs, and subvertly the artist's.
I'm aware that most record labels use videos to promote their records, but in recent years, and especially with the release of the Death Cab Directions DVD, can be a commodity itself. (Let's leave aside the whole "art as commodity" argument for now.) I don't see a video as removed from the musical process at all. At it's best, it is a collaboration between artists to create a new work. Whether or not it moves units should be of little importance.
I think that ultimately, as filmmakers we do a disservice to ourselves by propegating the idea that videos are merely commercials. If we act like they are more than that, then maybe the rest of the world will see it as well.
Well, there will reach a point when dialogue will break down, if for no other reason than that you're purporting the idea of a video as a advertisment for a band/album is necessarily a bad thing.
The form began as a way for musicians to use a visual medium to promote their decidedly non-visual work, starting with televised live clips, and then reaching out into the promotional clips along the lines of what the Beatle's were doing about the time of Rubber Soul (ie, clips that showcased the song, but had no correlation to the lyrics).
I'm sorry, but in the end a music video is an advertisment. However, I fail to see that the purpose of a clip should somehow supplant it's merits. Just as direct advertisments can be made in such a way as to elevate themselves above being merely ads for a product, so can music videos be capable of existing as art in their own right.
And a minor point, but one that merits clearing up: Labels don't pay for videos. The artists do. Video budgets are normally folded into an artists promotional budget, which is either paid out of an advance, or leveraged against future royalties.
stir this in: heard a song on the radio today that really caught my attention. cool track, i thought. and then, hey: i've heard this before. but i had no clear recollection who it was (and the radio wasn't saying). really liked the track. had to google the lyrics to find out it was the flaming lips' yeah yeah song. which reminded me: i'd come across its video here - and an interesting video it was. but the actual effect it had (without me noticing) was to completely drown out the song, to the point that i didn't recognise it.
looking back, i'd say there was something wrong with that video - or is it right that it was eyecandy unto itself, a separate product from the song? to make it even clearer: the strength of the song on the radio got me thinking about buying the record. the video... about buying traktor's director series dvd, if anything.