Music video and narrative: Do they complement each other?

[George Loch]

I see a lot of concept videos in the music world. Nonsensical and "artsy". I don't see a lot of successful narratives in the market. Is it too heavy a burden for a music video to carry?

-gl

 

[CharlesPapert]

Back in the early days of music videos, narrative was a major player. Once MTV hit big, there were quite a few high-budget videos that had narrative prologues, like mini-movies. "Thriller" is probably the best-known of those.

You don't see many of those today. I've certainly worked on a few though.

 

[jghenderson]

I was at a pretty big film festival earlier this year, and went to a panel of some of the top music video directors at the festival. All of them produced very high quality work.

During the Q&A, I asked a question about how how often music video's not only don't tell a narrative, but often don't even relate to the lyrics of the song whatsoever. To me this results in a disconnect, where you can watch the video and think to yourself "that was awesome", but still not actually get anything from it. You don't get what the video is trying to say, because most of the time it's not trying to say anything. I asked them if that was something they thought about, and do they think it's a difficult issue to deal with while they make their videos. None of them gave me anything approaching an answer to the question.

What I got from their non-answer, is that modern music video's are simply a different aesthetic from narratives. Often it is about a single image or series of similar images, and like a lot of modern art forms, they are not there to communicate an idea or even an emotion, but simply to be, and if you want to attach meaning to them yourself then go for it.

And maybe that's not a bad thing. Honestly most music these days doesn't tell a story either, so it would be difficult to put one over that. And if you did, how would you do it? Would the images directly correlate to the lyrics of that moment? Would that become boring, as simply a mere projection of what we are already hearing?

Ultimately I view music video's as experimental films. The best you can do is create a mood or a mystery, by any means necessary.

 

[George Loch]

I am glad others are asking this question as well. I have been nursing many a concept and I worry if they will be lost on a nonsensical world.

There are some great examples of good music video with some narrative elements. I loved the first Biting Elbows video, The Stampede. Limited story but, I thought it was a great example of a video where there was a story and yet, it wasn't directly correlated to lyrics and the story was better for it.

I just find myself wondering if there is a place in this world where music and visuals in a short form can tell stories that people connect to.

-gl

 

[Patryk_Rebisz]

I see a lot of concept videos in the music world. Nonsensical and "artsy". I don't see a lot of successful narratives in the market. Is it too heavy a burden for a music video to carry?

-gl

Can you define "Nonsensical and "artsy""? Why you assume that narrative is the apex of human communication? (As if dealing with less story-driven parts of our lives or dealing with ideas that can't be easily translated into a story was lesser)

 

[Patryk_Rebisz]

Often it is about a single image or series of similar images, and like a lot of modern art forms, they are not there to communicate an idea or even an emotion, but simply to be, and if you want to attach meaning to them yourself then go for it.

EVERYTHING exits on the level of the audience AND the lever of the maker. The audience can be intelligent about the work or dumb as doorbell. Lack of education on part of the audience is not really responsibility of the maker. One can't stagnate his intellectual progress. Nothing is simply to be. The act of being is "an act" - it has a purpose thus a meaning. Again i wouldn't go as far as to say that much nonsense out there has a meaning - contrary is probably the truth, but at the same time i wouldn't dismiss the work out there that is not gotten at first as it could be YOU that is not getting it and not necessary because the work itself has no meaning.

 

[jghenderson]

EVERYTHING exits on the level of the audience AND the lever of the maker. The audience can be intelligent about the work or dumb as doorbell. Lack of education on part of the audience is not really responsibility of the maker. One can't stagnate his intellectual progress. Nothing is simply to be. The act of being is "an act" - it has a purpose thus a meaning. Again i wouldn't go as far as to say that much nonsense out there has a meaning - contrary is probably the truth, but at the same time i wouldn't dismiss the work out there that is not gotten at first as it could be YOU that is not getting it and not necessary because the work itself has no meaning.

The idea that a seeming lack of meaning is due to the audience being "dumb as a doorbell" is the wrong approach in my opinion. The artist is not some higher being that simply by creating a work of art is on a higher plane of being, and it's up to the low audience to be intelligent enough to understand the meaning. You cannot tell me that Pollock or Rothko were existing on a higher plane and that a person that looks at their work and shrugs is an idiot. Yes the artist might have a meaning in their mind, but that doesn't mean much. Art is not about the existence of an idea, but the communication of it. If you are incapable of communicating a thought, emotion, etc., then you are a bad artist in my opinion. The real creativity comes in whether you are hitting the audience over the head, or subtly manipulating them into a feeling.

Also I think it's about degrees. In a feature film for instance, I don't mind a few extremely out there moments. Even if I don't get what that moment is trying to say, I still have the rest of the film, and in the context of the entire piece those bizzare moments can become beautiful and enigmatic. However if an entire piece is based around one of those bizarre moments, it's difficult to connect to the piece.

 

[Patryk_Rebisz]

The idea that a seeming lack of meaning is due to the audience being "dumb as a doorbell" is the wrong approach in my opinion. The artist is not some higher being that simply by creating a work of art is on a higher plane of being, and it's up to the low audience to be intelligent enough to understand the meaning. You cannot tell me that Pollock or Rothko were existing on a higher plane and that a person that looks at their work and shrugs is an idiot. Yes the artist might have a meaning in their mind, but that doesn't mean much. Art is not about the existence of an idea, but the communication of it. If you are incapable of communicating a thought, emotion, etc., then you are a bad artist in my opinion. The real creativity comes in whether you are hitting the audience over the head, or subtly manipulating them into a feeling.

Also I think it's about degrees. In a feature film for instance, I don't mind a few extremely out there moments. Even if I don't get what that moment is trying to say, I still have the rest of the film, and in the context of the entire piece those bizzare moments can become beautiful and enigmatic. However if an entire piece is based around one of those bizarre moments, it's difficult to connect to the piece.

I actually was going to make analogy to Pollock in my paragraph but decided not to go there but since you did... Then here we go.

In 1800s photography got invented. That forces the painters - who up to now were defacto the real image makers to start rethink their approach to painting. If photography can make an image in an instant why should we labor away for days? Thus Impressionism was created - making a painting out of "instant" feeling or impression. That forced painters to "abstract" - create images that are less then real - often much less than real. Images became more simplified. That in turn let artist that followed to stop thinking in terms of representation but start dealing with ideas. How do you show 3d space on flat surface of canvas (Cubism); how do you represent time and movement (Futurism); getting to essence of painting - paint and color (Fauvism); getting rid of figuration as Kandinsky did at the beginning of XX century so the images did not interfere with feelings that shapes, lines and colors created in the viewer's mind (he wrote length philosophical - though boring - treaties about it)- that's Abstraction. Culmination of that search for pictorial ideas was Abstract Expressionism. The maker wanted to reach the essence of painting so he got rid of traditional tools (brushes) and only retained the gesture and the paint. You got Pollock. You don't have Pollock if you are ignorant of history of art. If all you get is the impression of his paintings then you get "my kid could do that." Only knowledge of art history lets you appreciate the real contribution he did with his art. And only that appreciation can help you get existential experience in front of his paintings.

So yes i can't tell you that someone looking at his painting is an idiot but I CAN tell you that he/she is ignorant about art history.

 

[john threat]

There are so many layers to the music video industry and process that this isnt a simple question to answer. Not to mention all the different players that come together on a givenmusic video have different goals that can change the end result in a given video.

even in the selection process. There used to be a music video website that explained the business more but its gone now that all the big money dropped out of the industry. There are a few blogs that cover music video industry tho with all the names, and sometimes a brief story how the music video came about.

ill have to leave this board soon, i like giving advice on videos but if you do it here other people get mad and threaten your reputation! Scary!

 

[George Loch]

I guess there is still a place for them and they still inspire me. It appears that they need to be reinvented to be financially viable though :/

-gl

 

[john threat]

I heart music videos too! Lets do some!

 

[mainstreetprod]

I haven't seen many pop, rock or rap music videos since the 90's because they no longer interest me, but I have seen a lot of country music videos and produced a couple. Most all of them still tell a story, as I believe they should.

 

[Andrius Simutis]

The earlier part of this thread is an interesting look at the perspectives of the art student vs the literature student. Both views are perfectly valid, but they come down to a matter of taste. Narratives in video are fine, and I've done a couple like that in my slim catalog of music videos, but they're not always the best approach or even what the band wants or is willing to do. Sometimes the mere impression of the feeling of the song will do more than trying to play out the lyrics like a script or to play out a story arc in the space of three minutes.
The more practical consideration that a lot of directors won't always admit to is that shooting a narrative can be more difficult than simply creating interesting visuals. Musicians aren't always good actors and they don't always want to share the screen with actors in their own song. If you have a story arc, and the shot that makes the story work doesn't look that good, or doesn't play well to the music, then what are you going to do? No such problem when you simply shoot pretty pictures. Considering that the epic budgets of the 80's aren't coming back to music videos, producers need to make some hard choices to make their shoot more efficient.

 

[David Jimerson]

I always liked the cinematic, narrative music videos best. Standouts in my memory: Pat Benatar, "Shadows the Night" (sort of a Dirty Dozen spoof); Berlin, "No More Words" (1920s bank heist); A-Ha, "Take On Me" (girl swept into a comic book). Often they'd have little to do, story-wise, with the underlying song, but they'd work because they were their own self-contained stories.

A recent one which didn't work was Maroon 5, "Payphone." That little story made no sense at all.

 

[Drew Ott]

Regarding the discussion of the audience's ability to understand, unfortunately this is a HUGE factor. When I was school-aged, I got into watching The Seventh Seal, Dr. Strangelove, and Seven Samurai type movies. I thought each was mediocre. Oddly enough, it never crossed my mind that I didn't understand any of what I was seeing. This is the problem with education/intelligence, that it's hard to know you don't understand something if you don't understand it. As an audience member, when something goes "over your head" you literally are incapable of comprehending that anything was not comprehended.

Were Bergman, Kubrick, and Kurosawa at fault for not successfully communicating to me? Or was it my fault for not receiving the communication?

 

[john threat]

The Seventh Seal, Dr. Strangelove, and Seven Samurai type movies.

those movies mean nothing until you know loss or carnal pleasure. they arent for people who only know eating their parents food and staring at the walls in your own room

 

[Rolf Silber]

Were Bergman, Kubrick, and Kurosawa at fault for not successfully communicating to me? Or was it my fault for not receiving the communication?

Very good idea for a completely new thread that could produce a lot of great and at the same time contradictory ideas. And may leave all disscusants in the end dazed and befuddled and happily burping like after a good meal. Go for it.....

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

Were Bergman, Kubrick, and Kurosawa at fault for not successfully communicating to me? Or was it my fault for not receiving the communication?

No BKK were not 'at fault'. Further, while it may be that a filmmaker does have a 'communication' to make in a film, it is not necessarily the communication that later critics develop.

In some cases, the 'critics' develop a 'message' that has more affinity to a reading of a Rorschach ink blot, than to the film itself...

 

[Rolf Silber]

No BKK were not 'at fault'. Further, while it may be that a filmmaker does have a 'communication' to make in a film, it is not necessarily the communication that later critics develop.

In some cases, the 'critics' develop a 'message' that has more affinity to a reading of a Rorschach ink blot, than to the film itself...

Cinematic Rohrschaching. New expression in my library of film-terms...... ;-)

My formula for messages in film (and why the message gets stuck so often): Personal experiences multiplied with cultural and educational standarts divided by ability (and/or the willingmess) to decipher and understand dramatic content exponentiated by brain-size and scaled down (or up) by intake of substances.

Leaves plenty of room for a) not understanding a message that was there and supposed to be understood b) not understanding a message that was there but was supposed to only be understood by those "in the know" c) not understanding a message that was not there from the start d) understanding an existing message wrong e) understanding a message by uploading a ton of meaning to a film that either had no meaning or a different one than the "uploaders" believed (There it is: Cinematic Rohrschaching. Love it).

 

[groveChuck]

Cinematic Rohrschaching, or, interpretation (I know, Rolf, not as poetic)

Ambiguity certainly begets interpre, I mean... Rohrschaching... :happy:

Duran Duran videos of the early 80's were certainly narrative, exotic locations, big budget... the Billy Joel one set in the bar. That was then, this is now...

And perhaps in general, better no narrative than bad (especially poorly acted) narrative.