Telephone.
- Thread starter Pookie
- Start date
Wow. Way better version of the song and music video.
Even more impressive when you consider
"This cover is a VideoSong, a new medium with 2 rules:
1. What you see is what you hear (no lip-syncing for instruments or voice).
2. If you hear it, at some point you see it (no hidden sounds)."
So you are seeing video of the actual recorded takes, is what I think that means.
"This cover is a VideoSong, a new medium with 2 rules:
1. What you see is what you hear (no lip-syncing for instruments or voice).
2. If you hear it, at some point you see it (no hidden sounds)."
So you are seeing video of the actual recorded takes, is what I think that means.
cool. :]
kevinottawa
Well-known member
Too bad she can't sing, and I would know, as I stink at singing, and we can recognise eachother.
Paul Hudson
Vacuum Tube Member
Here they are again. This has had over 3 million views.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIr8-f2OWhs&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIr8-f2OWhs&feature=player_embedded
RichardVClark
Well-known member
kevinottawa
Well-known member
Umm k? What has that have to do with me saying the youtube girl can't sing?
Plus I think I have to agree with Ian Malcolm on this one. (The rant not the peticular youtube post)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7NEdbJ3ugE
Pookie
Veteran
OK. She may not be Aretha Franklin or Freddie Mercury, but she has a classic folk singer voice.
It's pleasant. On pitch. Lyric and not forced. And she's sing close harmony with herself like it's nothing. Some folks can carry a tune and could belt her off the microphone but those harmonies are not easy. She's a flute. Not a saxophone.
Also, the whole point of their aesthetic is that it's understated.
So if your definition if singing is American Idol soulful showboating, your missing the point of their aesthetic.
It's pleasant. On pitch. Lyric and not forced. And she's sing close harmony with herself like it's nothing. Some folks can carry a tune and could belt her off the microphone but those harmonies are not easy. She's a flute. Not a saxophone.
Also, the whole point of their aesthetic is that it's understated.
So if your definition if singing is American Idol soulful showboating, your missing the point of their aesthetic.
kevinottawa
Well-known member
I dont watch American Idol.
Or Canadian Idol for that matter.
But her videos are watchable, just to be mesmerized by her doe in the headlights looks and her hypnotoad eyes.
Or Canadian Idol for that matter.
But her videos are watchable, just to be mesmerized by her doe in the headlights looks and her hypnotoad eyes.
kevinottawa
Well-known member
And the Ian Malcolm thing, reffering to this guy.
| IMPORTANT NOTICE: No media files are hosted on these forums. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website. We can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. If the video does not play, wait a minute or try again later. |
| I AGREE |
Pookie
Veteran
You're just...
You must be cold in Ottawa...:embarasse
| IMPORTANT NOTICE: No media files are hosted on these forums. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website. We can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. If the video does not play, wait a minute or try again later. |
| I AGREE |
You must be cold in Ottawa...:embarasse
kevinottawa
Well-known member
Its the eyes.
kevinottawa
Well-known member
It isnt realy as you say, they do use effects on the vocals, its just like any other song recording, you lay down and bunch of take, and pic and choose the best parts and mash them together, i dont think it matters much that you see the video that goes alogn with the audio.
It's not as I say. It's as they say. And they didn't say they didn't use effects so I don't know what you are referring to.
All they mean is that when they are doing the bunch of takes that you mention, they also take video of it. So when they pick the best take they're picking the video that goes with it as well. So no lypsyncing, they were actually singing when you see them on camera. Which is why, for the multiple vocals, etc. you see mutliple video images on the screen at the same time.
All they mean by if you hear it at SOME POINT you see it is that if they are shutting a drawer or dinging a triangle as part of the music, they'll show it in use at least once.
Never says anything about not using filters or effects.
Also like DOGMA 95 these are probably guidelines that they can adhere to or bend the rules if they want. I'm sure there is some amount of fudging going on every now and then.
But it's a real simple concpet:
1) record your audio sessions on video, then use the video of the audio you chose
2) whatever you've recorded show on camera at least once
Not don't use effects.
The idea behind no lypsyncing is that you get a more organic thing where the recording session is filmed then edited in an interesting way rather than it's recored at somepoint then people dress up in a bunch of costumes on a set much later and just move their lips to a recording.
You kind of hit the nail on the head when you say
"you lay down and bunch of take, and pic and choose the best parts and mash them together"
laying down a bunch of audio takes and choosing the best ones makes a recorded song.
shooting video and audio takes at the same time them "mashing them together" makes it a VIDEOSONG.
It's cooler or more impressive because, while filters or effects can still be used, your seeing the actual performance that you are hearing. Filters and effects are used in live performance as well.
All they mean is that when they are doing the bunch of takes that you mention, they also take video of it. So when they pick the best take they're picking the video that goes with it as well. So no lypsyncing, they were actually singing when you see them on camera. Which is why, for the multiple vocals, etc. you see mutliple video images on the screen at the same time.
All they mean by if you hear it at SOME POINT you see it is that if they are shutting a drawer or dinging a triangle as part of the music, they'll show it in use at least once.
Never says anything about not using filters or effects.
Also like DOGMA 95 these are probably guidelines that they can adhere to or bend the rules if they want. I'm sure there is some amount of fudging going on every now and then.
But it's a real simple concpet:
1) record your audio sessions on video, then use the video of the audio you chose
2) whatever you've recorded show on camera at least once
Not don't use effects.
The idea behind no lypsyncing is that you get a more organic thing where the recording session is filmed then edited in an interesting way rather than it's recored at somepoint then people dress up in a bunch of costumes on a set much later and just move their lips to a recording.
You kind of hit the nail on the head when you say
"you lay down and bunch of take, and pic and choose the best parts and mash them together"
laying down a bunch of audio takes and choosing the best ones makes a recorded song.
shooting video and audio takes at the same time them "mashing them together" makes it a VIDEOSONG.
It's cooler or more impressive because, while filters or effects can still be used, your seeing the actual performance that you are hearing. Filters and effects are used in live performance as well.
groveChuck
U-matic Member
The strange thing is how the lack of affect in her voice and on her face results in those many takes/many shots of her looking virtually the same, even how she keeps her eyes looking to her left.
A thoroughly enjoyable pop song and video, straight out of the bedroom studio.
But somebody should buy the drummer a second drum stick...
A thoroughly enjoyable pop song and video, straight out of the bedroom studio.
But somebody should buy the drummer a second drum stick...
lol (re drumstick)
yeah they are such an interesting contrast
he's so animated and muggy (in a good way)
and she's so low affect (in a good way)
so you get some kind of balance cutting between this dazed angelic automaton and this wild maniacal buffoon (in a good way)
She never smiles though. I've seen most of their videos now and she kind of almost smirks once. But that's it.
yeah they are such an interesting contrast
he's so animated and muggy (in a good way)
and she's so low affect (in a good way)
so you get some kind of balance cutting between this dazed angelic automaton and this wild maniacal buffoon (in a good way)
She never smiles though. I've seen most of their videos now and she kind of almost smirks once. But that's it.