rigobert gets all theoretical.

         

Rigobert's getting close to the crux of music video - and, likely, art - criticism.

Which is: (here via wikipedia) "Part of the purpose of art criticism is to have a rational basis for the appreciation of art and avoid subjective opinions of taste but this is not always achieved."

There are so many ways one can appreciate and critique a single video, that to be a quality authority on music video, you've got to be paid by a University (i.e. Henry Keazor) in order to have the resources to study it, or else spend a hell of a lot of your spare time concentrating only on critique, which can be overbearing when you have other things happening.

Rigobert has some valid and good points there, but he's missing the bigger picture of what true music video criticism is. I'm not going to elaborate with getting paid.

         

Rigobert is wrapping up a subjective and personal preference in lots of theory. And not the most cohesive theory, I have to say.

Any 'concept' video director spends a great deal of time thinking about how the image sits with the song, musically and lyrically. The implication that they are a selfish breed intent on overwhelming the musicians art with their own, is ill-judged.

Many musicians consider a conceptual treatment to be more closely in keeping with their music than a standardised performance that ticks all the marketing boxes, not because they underestimate their own performance, but because they are as interested in visual experimentation and creative thought as they are aural.

Marketing people too see the strength of the concept video as a means to stand out from the crowd - particularly on a small budget.

Don't get me wrong, a good performance video is truly a joy to behold, (and many good ones have received Antville plaudits) But ultimately a great video is about a great synergy between sound and image, how ever that is achieved.

Perhaps in a round about way, this is all that Rigobert is saying.

PS Kev - You saying Antville is the new Lester Bangs? ;-)

         

Since the visual aspect of music is just as important as the audible side, I'd reckon that a modern day Lester Bangs would actually have to be quite familiar with music videos in order to truly understand a pop entertainer's relevance and context. Now if only the labels would look at it that way when deciding budgets.

         

Sorry Ben I erased that part - too side-tracked and grandiose. (I had said in ref to this that the new Lester Bangs will probably be 10 bloggers).

I should add to my jumble: MV history grows daily. Any good historically-vetted criticism requires a lot of research + resources, and an editor - things that can only be sustained at universities and institutions like MoMA.

         

Kev: I agree with your last point, except for the videos I choe to focus on and likewise the ones this community usually takes interest in are done for VERY small budgets, with directors' fees that are usually worth exponentially more when they're waived and put towards the production. I really don't think Jarmusch did The Raconteurs for a paycheck. Everyone here is aware of how video budgets are rapidly declining, the career as music video director is getting less and less viable.

Unless you were saying theorists need to be paid to really achieve something...in that case, I agree too, and I'm not paid to use blogger, so that means what it implies.

Benroll, hmm, I'm not sure how theories are different from personal preferences and impressions. Even if it is, there are disclaimers in almost every other entry I write that, yes, this is ALL based on personal preference. I've had that site up for a month and a half and don't call myself a theorist (I claim to try to sound like one, but not to be a credible one), don't expect to be called a theorist, and don't promote my opinions anywhere but there (until now). I write about films, soccer, music videos, and other superficial bits. I write there at my leisure. I hope it's clear that it's a personal site. That said, I do like the attention and certainly the discussion.

I disagree that any concept video director spends time thinking about image and song. I know a portion of them think about concept as a whole, as a sentence, ideas not execution, and it's clear when their video has nothing to offer after the intial payoff. Again I reference the Morningwood video, Waverly's Braund Reynolds video or a number of Olivier Gondry videos. I certainly don't wish to make blanket statements about music video genres or any directors' oeuvre (O. Gondry being an exception), because both Wormseye and Waverly have also done really wonderful work.

What I hoped I had made clear is that I think concept videos have a greater latitude of acceptance in the marketplace, when a lot of times these videos aren't up to par. (My example is with Secret Machines, whose videos are always strongest when they're the focus.) I think maybe my entry should better contrast with my previous entry... An idea on paper does not make a film good, nor does it make a music video good. The best ones to me cannot be written and in these two worlds there is too much emphasis on the tangible. I was probably taking the standardized treatment/script-writing and submission process to task most of all. I fully understand this process IS based on safety and return on investment, but I don't have to claim it makes for better works of art, or art at all.

I have a conclusion coming soon, if anyone wishes to keep up.

         

Conceptual videos have the tendency to be really boring, and pretentious, thus revealing that they really aren't about the music- but about the director. This is only common sense.

         

Rigobert: Personal opinions are the starting point for theorising. I think I was confused that what appeared to start as a kind of diatribe against the concept video in your article, finished up with citations of concept videos that you really liked. The one you singled out for criticism (Morningwood) - I would call a performance video (agreed - with a visual concept running through it). I'm not sure I get what your stand is on the subject.

I have to say that your comment about waived directors fees being exponentially more valuable on very low budget stuff is very insightful, particularly if you're not a producer. You're right of course that once all the obligatory expenses have gone out on a low buget,that the disposable budget may be doubled by the inclusion of the director's fee.

I agree that many concept videos don't quite make the grade. But this could well be to do with budgetary considerations too. Not to mention the fact that a director who works with small budgets probably has less experience too.

A good concept not only needs to work as an idea, but also work practically on the budget - an altogether taller order. It's right that these videos have the spirit of experimentation, but experimentation can bring failure. Is there really a greater proportion of concept videos that fall below par than performance ones? Maybe expectations of concept videos are highter. Maybe it depends where you draw the line between the two. The reality is that they don't actually form two camps....more like a continuum.

I don't think that there is a greater lattitude of acceptance for concept videos though (most times, the push from labels is towards performance) The holy grail at the moment is the performance with a twist - i.e. the alliance of concept and performance in one video, especially if it's viral in concept - an idea so strong or radical that it will capture people's imagination even if created for next to nothing. That maximises the impact/input ratio for the label.

Strong or radical concepts depend on everyone pulling in the same direction though: director, producer, commissioner, label, management, band. Sadly this is often not the case and ideas can get watered down - another point at which a strong concept can fall down.

At the end of the day, the performance is always the safer bet, but a really great concept piece has the potential to travel so much further and last that much longer. It's a question of whether you want to take the risk.

         

detached: >>Conceptual videos have the tendency to be really boring.. Boring to whom? People who don't get turned on by ideas?

>> and pretentious... What do they pretend to be? Pretentious is often a word used by people who aren't comfortable with expressing themselves creatively about people who are.

>> thus revealing that they really aren't about the music - but about the director. This is only common sense. Common sense says that if directors weren't into the music, they'd be using their talents for something much more lucrative.

P.S. I'll be posting one of my boring and pretentious concept videos soon, so you can slate it! ;-)

         

On the 'pretentious' note: One thing that's defined web communication is our inability to accurately communicate our feelings and thoughts to each other.

Criticism has uploaded itself very easily onto the web, becoming one of its touchstones, thanks to the blogosphere. But it becomes difficult to judge when we cross the line from mere criticism into scholarly theory. Unfortunately scholarly work takes time. I think we're all missing the boat in believing that we bloggers and 'zine writers are making truly accurate and appropriate criticism about our culture (including music videos).

I think 'pretentious' is a word that gets levelled, both correctly and mistakenly, at people/artists who have more scholarly/creative aims, but find themselves working through their ideas, or posting their work, on this great, multi-tiered idealab we call the Internet.

It's a matter of venue: Your couch is best for relaxing after a long day at work, beer in hand. Criticism is best when it is given the resources (time, money, historical record) it needs.

It's best when theorizing on the web to keep this in mind. Back to the videos! ;)

         

I don't think anyone regards Antville as a place to publish their dissertation, but I do think that what we have here is good honest discourse. If you rule out a bit of theorizing in that discourse, you have a much weaker mix. You limit yourself to the most cursory criticism.

To call something pretentious is an attack on a person's character, not on their work. It implys arrogance, vainglory, insincerity or delusions of grandeur on their part. It ridicules their motives.

I say it is itself an accusation usually motivated by misunderstanding and conservatism.

Better to criticise what's made, not the maker.

As far as Antville goes, take a thread like Johan - Oceans, which mixed up opinion, emotion, theory, criticism, humour and detective work. An example of this forum at its best. I also wouldn't underestimate the collective music video and even cultural knowledge base on this group. Progosk alone (who started this thread) is a one-man media dictionary.

So contrary to Kev, I say cast caution to the wind and bring on the theorizing!

         

Wanker!

         

Discussions like this always seem so far removed from the actual world of music videos. And I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing.

         

hmmm maybe i'm a bit late but i think there's one thing only glossed over -

there is a HUGE difference between a Raconteurs video and a Carpark North video.

A ton of people know who the White Stripes are and a good chunk of those have heard of Jack White's side project. They'll seek out the video or welcome it when it appears on TV.

Carpark North wouldn't have a chance to get seen/heard if it wasn't for that great video. This may be pointless seeing as it's not distributed in the US; but if they managed to make a video that didn't upstage the song... then you know, tree falling in the woods.

(for the record, the label dumped Jarmusch's video and reshot something a lot more fun/accessible).

         

Kev: ???

Is that a joke, or did I cause offense?

My previous comment isn't directed at you, but at people who are generally dismissive of creative endeavour.

Obviously, that's not you.

         

Marc, that's kind of what I was saying, or questioning...

That Carpark North is about the video and The Raconteurs is about the song and the band. Neither approach is better, and yes, certainly from a music video perspective de Thurah's outshines Jarmusch's by leaps and bounds, but an idea I'm trying to talk through is that burden of how much importance image gets at the expense of sound and band. What's the best way to honor the music, and should a director worry about upstaging it? I don't care for the song Steady As She Goes, but it's what I concentrate on when watching JJ's video. And the cows.

Spit: I think discussions on a director's intent and purpose in relation to the song is entirely relevant to the actual world of music videos.

         

Sorry, Ben: joke. Commence smiling! (It was also a signal that I was removing myself from further high-level commentary.)

         

Rig: I think Carpark North is about both. Part of the reason that it works so well is its superb interpretation and understanding of the track. Their synergy makes them seem inseparable. But seeming inseparable as you watch and overwhelming the music are different matters. I bought the track on iTunes and it stands on its own for me.

Music video is intrinsically about the marriage of image and sound. A strong video always works with the track. Music needs space to breathe and if you let it do so, it often does half the work for you.

And Kev: Thought so....am smiling - but wasn't sure. I also now excuse myself from this debate for a bit as I've got a video to edit and I'm hell bent on overwhelming Mr. Warmsley's music with my perfidious images :)

         

Ben: Agreed. One thing I hope no one assumes from what I write (anywhere, in any medium) is that it's trying to make a concrete statement. I'd rather start endless conversations that get batted around and double back on themselves and are full of contradictions.

Which is why I think it's funny that still now I need remember that I thought of the Carpark North video originally because it was not what I could call a paperwork video. All the videos I claimed were successful for me were ones that don't seem to have relied on a big treatment. There are some elements that might look nice in the treatment, but these concepts certainly had a chance of being passed on because they may have seemed thin.

That is really the seed of my thoughts, the overemphasis on text (script, treatment) instead of image and sound. I'm not choosing performance over concept at all.

         

Wait 'til the end of the year when we get to decide which videos really blowed. I've got a few up my sleeve..

spit: Just let us blowhard, don't mind us.

         

Some videos work. Some videos don't. When they do, we all feel it. When they don't they get disected and scrutinised here more than need be. That's it, that's all...It's Saturday night and I have my finest dancing shoes on, so while you all rock, i will go roll...Ben, if you're at the next Antenna, a beer is on me...

         

still too on holiday to weigh in here, but one thought keeps recurring: i keep noticing recently how even videos i really love sometimes definitely distort/deviate my perception of the song, and that often a listen to it without the video is a very refreshing/purifying experience. i've found - unexpectedly - that i need to set apart time for music as music (whereas obviously videos without the track make pitifully little sense).

there have been occasions on which the video informed my listening to a new/higher appreciation (white stripes' doorbell comes to mind) but they've been extremely rare. which i take as confirmation that i tend to watch music videos as a form in their own right with respect to the song - and i'm starting to realise that that's not a dichotomy i'm happy/confortable with.

         

In this age of digitally perfect audio recording it seems there's a tendency to reverentially think of the recorded version as the definitive one.

Perhaps a band's live performance is more definitive - more grass roots. Live, the tracks are often faster and sound quite different to their recorded counterparts. The recorded sound is as much the producer's sound as the band's.

Then there's remixes, cover versions, acoustic versions, live recordings and remasterings. Do these spoil or enhance the original?

There exist bands whose image is as much a part of themselves as their music: Kraftwerk, Devo, Sex Pistols, Village People etc.

And are there not albums that we can't put on without having the album artwork imprinted in our mind's eye? Trout Mask Replica, Nevermind, Sergeant Peppers, London Calling, Velvet Underground etc.

And finally, there are those artists who are inseparable from their mythology. Like Van Gogh in painting a listen to their music is somehow less meaningful without some knowledge of their life. There's Syd Barrett, Pete Doherty, Kurt Cobain, Roky Erickson etc.

I think music video too can be seen as an extension of the band's image, designed for a medium that requires moving pictures. After all, these things were originally conceived as televisual proxies for the artist in their absence. Maybe they work like an avatar, sometimes representational, sometimes abstract, often changed.

I don't see any reason to feel uncomfortable with this dichotomy. In fact, I'm not entirely sure I see a dichotomy at all.

Listening to a song without the video is purer. But it doesn't necessarily follow that we should be purist.

PS Scooper: Should be at the next Antenna (workload permitting). It's early October I think. Look me up before, or you can find me in the bar :)

         

Yeah, what's wrong with that dichotomy? Is it that it's becoming a job for you? Personally, I've saved classical music as a realm where I can listen and not worry about who wrote it or what visuals would go with it. Give yourself some space in music to enjoy it without thinking, or find something else to do that you get joy out of. Now is the time on Sprockets when we dance!!