Bands and their &$#%^@ videos....

EDV

EDV

Well-known member
I can't believe some of the stuff they put on their websites...

Here is one example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QNxscK4icU

here's another:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42pgD0qoEEM

I probably should post other examples... this one, literally taken with a mobile phone....then embedded on the webpage of the artist.. who I should mention was one of the top acts in Sydney and had toured and recorded internationally....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXeUm_slzAM

(she's had this "fan video" on her page for over a year!!! Still does!!)

now, here's what bugs me... these are not "garage" bands by any means.... these acts have or are releasing Albums soon, and their studio tracks are professionally produced and costed them several thousand dollars to produce. They also are quite well known around the local scene, and believe me , it's VERY competitive out here in Australia.
Why then release such horrible quality videos? Why post them on their webpage?
Is this market worth even looking at? Surely if a mobile phone camera "does the job" for them, something like a HPX170 would be completely out of the question?!?
 
Last edited:
yes becasue a hpx170 + operator costs money.

There is a weird phenomenon where, people in the generation coming up, approximately under 25 years old, have become so accustomed to low quality images and sound, ( Youtube/ MP3) they dont quite "hear" or "see" the flaws. Hell, alot of teenagers have never heard a CD... But this tolerance also extends to the quality of the content as well. Amateur camera work, poor sound, blurry Iphone clips. Its all good. This isnt to say they cant appreciate high production value, but they arent bothered by low quality the way the generation above us is. My parents cant watch ANYTHING on you tube. They almost get offended by the "production quality" and blurry sound and picture. My grandmother in fact couldn't even tell what is happening in most you tube viral vids. She doesn't understand the lack of context. As she puts it, "I dont know what i'm looking for... who is that person?"

Im affected by it too, our current aesthetic tastes includes lots of NONO's that would have gotten me fired 2 generations ago. I mean, in the 1950's if there was a lens flare in a studio picture, the DP was fired. Now look at the "flaws becoming part of the medium". JJabrams Star Trek? The lens flare was a character in the film, and even had a line i think. Hand held, Faux Reality TV like the office with intentionally "poor" camera work, Lens Flares, film burn effects, GRAIN!, shallow depth of field.. all these aesthetic choices were cause for a firing back in the day. I mean, god, in The Magnificent Ambersons" 90% of the film is shot at a T16, specifically because the producer wanted to show off all the money he spent on the set design. Remeber, prior to films, there was theater. In theater, a big budget production had great sets, and great actors. All of a sudden when you go to film, the DOF causes you to lose visually, all the money you spent on the set.... Hence, it was a DP's job to make sure it was all visible.

ok rant over.

but yea. Noone cares about how bad a youtube video looks, cause most of it looks bad.
 
My guess: They might have scraped the money together to have the album recorded professionally, and might not have the cash to pay someone for a professional video. But they're thinking, "we need to get our music out there and flooding the market as much as possible."

One of my favorite videos right now was shot on what was little to no budget. Their instruments were stolen, so they play their song on the subway using iPhones:

 
TimurCivan said:
Amateur camera work, poor sound, blurry Iphone clips. Its all good.
Click to expand...
I suspect a similar phenomenon is taking place at schools.... where the literacy skills must have fallen to sub-zero levels.... I'm glad I'm not an English teacher...
can you imagine reading all those "k tty l8 wtf lol cya" essays...!?!?
 
TimurCivan said:
yes becasue a hpx170 + operator costs money.

There is a weird phenomenon where, people in the generation coming up, approximately under 25 years old, have become so accustomed to low quality images and sound, ( Youtube/ MP3) they dont quite "hear" or "see" the flaws. Hell, alot of teenagers have never heard a CD... But this tolerance also extends to the quality of the content as well. Amateur camera work, poor sound, blurry Iphone clips. Its all good. This isnt to say they cant appreciate high production value, but they arent bothered by low quality the way the generation above us is. My parents cant watch ANYTHING on you tube. They almost get offended by the "production quality" and blurry sound and picture. My grandmother in fact couldn't even tell what is happening in most you tube viral vids. She doesn't understand the lack of context. As she puts it, "I dont know what i'm looking for... who is that person?"

Im affected by it too, our current aesthetic tastes includes lots of NONO's that would have gotten me fired 2 generations ago. I mean, in the 1950's if there was a lens flare in a studio picture, the DP was fired. Now look at the "flaws becoming part of the medium". JJabrams Star Trek? The lens flare was a character in the film, and even had a line i think. Hand held, Faux Reality TV like the office with intentionally "poor" camera work, Lens Flares, film burn effects, GRAIN!, shallow depth of field.. all these aesthetic choices were cause for a firing back in the day. I mean, god, in The Magnificent Ambersons" 90% of the film is shot at a T16, specifically because the producer wanted to show off all the money he spent on the set design. Remeber, prior to films, there was theater. In theater, a big budget production had great sets, and great actors. All of a sudden when you go to film, the DOF causes you to lose visually, all the money you spent on the set.... Hence, it was a DP's job to make sure it was all visible.

ok rant over.

but yea. Noone cares about how bad a youtube video looks, cause most of it looks bad.
Click to expand...

But a Damn good rant! Thanks for sharing.
 
Any video is better than no video (unless you're caught committing a crime or something).

If a band can't afford a cameraman, I'm sure they're glad to have somebody recording a crappy video on a cell phone.
 
TimurCivan said:
There is a weird phenomenon where, people in the generation coming up, approximately under 25 years old, have become so accustomed to low quality images and sound, ( Youtube/ MP3) they dont quite "hear" or "see" the flaws. Hell, alot of teenagers have never heard a CD... But this tolerance also extends to the quality of the content as well. Amateur camera work, poor sound, blurry Iphone clips. Its all good. This isnt to say they cant appreciate high production value, but they arent bothered by low quality the way the generation above us is. My parents cant watch ANYTHING on you tube. They almost get offended by the "production quality" and blurry sound and picture. .
Click to expand...

the great irony here is that we've got guys willing to argue till they're blue in the face about every single minute imperfection with cameras that are still in pre-production; but the vast majority of the time it's stuff the general public will never notice, understand, or care about.
 
ugafan said:
the great irony here is that we've got guys willing to argue till they're blue in the face about every single minute imperfection with cameras that are still in pre-production; but the vast majority of the time it's stuff the general public will never notice, understand, or care about.
Click to expand...

My exact thoughts. Some filmmakers claim that the audience will hate these slight imperfections. Yet time and time again we see cases where quality makes no difference. Mind you if an audience saw a music video on tv of the quality of the first examples they would be disgusted, but I highly doubt they'd notice or even care if there's a bit of noise in the darks of a DSLR versus Red footage that has a large dynamic range... give me a break!

I do believe there needs to be a certain degree of professionalism and thought put into a visual medium, but time and time again we see that all it really is about is the content.
 
ugafan said:
the great irony here is that we've got guys willing to argue till they're blue in the face about every single minute imperfection with cameras that are still in pre-production; but the vast majority of the time it's stuff the general public will never notice, understand, or care about.
Click to expand...

I'm going through a change in mentality about production... where I will hopefully be able to write some complete stories instead of just coming up with ideas... because of your very analysis above. I'm accepting that my love of tech is just that... MINE. Other gear-heads care, but the current generation doesn't. While I love seeing quality bokeh, or good lighting ratios, and enjoy a nice rack-focus, beauty is in the eye of the gear-holder... but ultimately the story, and how well it's done... is almost all that matters for commercial success.

All gear is becoming less and less glamorous to me as I'm finally beginning to appreciate how hard it is to tell a compelling story that captures a wide audience.
 
Of course it's all about the content!

Or is that only obvious to me because I have a screenwriting background, and not a cinematography one?

Anyway, I don't think the 50s is a fair decade to compare today's world with. Try the 70's. Movies like Dark Star, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Halloween have lot in common with movies like Monsters, The Blair Witch Project and Paranormal Activities.
 
The phrase, "content is king", is nothing new... we've all heard and said that...

But the mega-short-attention-span gen Y (or whatever it is now)... is really driving that point home like never before.

Well produced entertainment is devolving at the lower levels... and evolving at the higher levels. Good is becoming great, and bad is becoming acceptable.
 
I was on set last night talking to another cinematographer, and we were discussing how about 6-7 years ago, the music video died. There is still money in commercials, narratives, and documentaries (sometimes!), but the $5,000 - three day music video is here to stay. It's absolutely a tragedy and an utter disgrace.

Only the huge artists get real budgets and the rest have to find some clever gimmick to stand out. Otherwise, it's garbage. On the bright side these restrictions have created nice creative solutions and ideas such as the 'treadmill' Ok-go video and others.

RIP Music Video
 
I have a little hope in this area. I recently started up a radio station and came across some really wonderful music on jamendo.com but there was this band "Singleton" that stood out for me. Not only are the fantastic, they seem to be on the right track in terms of how they like to present themselves. I have my hands in a LOT of things (i.e. book publishing, documentaries, music, etc.) and I have to say this garbage in, garbage out is rampant across the board. So when I do find someone who actually cares about their band/music for more than the 15 minutes of fame they hope to get, I tend to feel like there may be some glimmer of hope. :) This video also made me want to start doing music videos. It's a very simple video shot in one location in 2 attached rooms but I think it's still very effective and wonderfully done. I'm sure this band probably sat down and said "what can we do effectively?" well that's the impression I got anyway and they aren't even signed or anything. They have pictures of the video shoot on their FB page and it was very simple setup. Being a musician myself, if I get to the point where I want to do a music video, I'm paying good money to have a good video done.

This is a good topic. I understand people are doing the best they can sometimes but not really a lot of times. Think about this, you have a band of 4 people all with iphones... instead of buying iphones they could have pooled that money and bought an HV40 and found someone to help them make a video in a more effective way or well... saved up... there's a concept. :)

 
This video is the first I've seen in a while that tells a story instead of just watching the band play. I love how it's done:

 
Yeah...if I see a video of the band just playing with the standard issue shots - fretboard/slow mo of the drummer on crashes/angst ridden dead center vocalist shots/yadda yadda yadda- I just don't bother watching and listen to the song instead. ANY story/concept would set most music videos apart these days - Like the one above. It could be shot with just about any halfway decent cam...as long as there is something unique about what is shown.
 
Also keep in mind most people have no idea of what a video ACTUALLY costs. In this day in age it's easy to pick up a camera, AND musicians are usually self produced, self managed. It's not like they're a company that deals with large sums of money all the time, and sees why things can potentially cost a lot.

I'm helping a friend with a music video (and need portfolio work), and getting him to just dish out 500$ to rent some equipment is painstaking. He's very hesitant to spend that much (ugh). I'm trying to explain to him that sometimes a 10 minute film can cost up to 35,000-50,000 on a semi-pro level, so 500$ isn't much...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top