All I see was Laguna Bitch and a show about a bunch of kids fighting over who ate the last Fig Newton.
Does anyone here (amv makers) do work for MTV?
-
LuluandAuron
- Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 1:01 am
- Location: Canada
Way back in the olden days (25ish years ago)Yokou Seishirou wrote:When has MTV actually showed a music video?
All I see was Laguna Bitch and a show about a bunch of kids fighting over who ate the last Fig Newton.
Speaking of the olden days
Transformer was on mon-fri at 4:30pm
Astroboy at 3:30 every sat.
and cartoon ended at 4:30 on sat.
Sorry, got off subject.
-
post-it
- Joined: Wed Jul 17, 2002 5:21 am
- Status: Hunting Tanks
- Location: Chilliwack - Fishing
.. when MTV first started, the Concept was untested. Those of us who saw it wondered why it took soooooo long for this Concept to become Reality. Today, I feel offended when they say, "buy this collection of Songs" and they do not have the Videos to those songs! ( its like a Double Standard; they show mini-clips of the Band playing the Songs in the Commercial but when you get the thing in the mail its only audio >_<
.. MTV is not responsible for the Content of their Videos .. no matter how you look at that statement, they are being quite brave about playing something that they themselves have not created and then expect to be Payed for Showing anothers Creation.
.. Could "WE" make better Videos than those who are currently Creating the Videos shown on MTV? .. hmmm .. tuff-call.
1) we are mixxing and matching Songs to Videos for AMV's.
2) They are matching the Band Members to Songs that "we might not like."
3) we are open to suggestion on how to Improve what we have created.
4) They are stuck with what they have done and Pray that it is good enough.
5) we know Timing, Overlays and Transitions .. if it doesn't work, we change it.
6) They can not experiment with the Newest Stuff because People Are Depending On Them To Already Know What The Future Will Need.
... yeah; that's a tuff-call! Who is right and Who is Wrong!?!
.. MTV is not responsible for the Content of their Videos .. no matter how you look at that statement, they are being quite brave about playing something that they themselves have not created and then expect to be Payed for Showing anothers Creation.
.. Could "WE" make better Videos than those who are currently Creating the Videos shown on MTV? .. hmmm .. tuff-call.
1) we are mixxing and matching Songs to Videos for AMV's.
2) They are matching the Band Members to Songs that "we might not like."
3) we are open to suggestion on how to Improve what we have created.
4) They are stuck with what they have done and Pray that it is good enough.
5) we know Timing, Overlays and Transitions .. if it doesn't work, we change it.
6) They can not experiment with the Newest Stuff because People Are Depending On Them To Already Know What The Future Will Need.
... yeah; that's a tuff-call! Who is right and Who is Wrong!?!
-
Sukunai
- Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 1:00 pm
- Location: Ontario Canada
Last part of your post ..
Well, I'm just assuming that music videos, proper commercial ones, cost a good lot of cash, are made in proper recording studios, and created with the skills of properly trained technicians.
Which brings me back to the question, why did the video for Gravity of Love, the real one, the one paid for by Enya err I mean Enigma
, why did it totally suck in comparison to something made by a likely not formally trained individual who's only real asset was they could take as long as they wanted.
I like a particular one, that uses footage from Kingdom Hearts. I suspect you have possibly seen it.
Yeah the pros have to make it, hope it was good, and then put it out there as you said. But heck, they are getting paid big bucks eh. The artist is going to sure expect better than a best guess
Makes me wonder, are most musicians simply only good at singing, and really, not all that good at filming something interesting?
Well, I'm just assuming that music videos, proper commercial ones, cost a good lot of cash, are made in proper recording studios, and created with the skills of properly trained technicians.
Which brings me back to the question, why did the video for Gravity of Love, the real one, the one paid for by Enya err I mean Enigma
, why did it totally suck in comparison to something made by a likely not formally trained individual who's only real asset was they could take as long as they wanted.I like a particular one, that uses footage from Kingdom Hearts. I suspect you have possibly seen it.
Yeah the pros have to make it, hope it was good, and then put it out there as you said. But heck, they are getting paid big bucks eh. The artist is going to sure expect better than a best guess
Makes me wonder, are most musicians simply only good at singing, and really, not all that good at filming something interesting?
Anime, one of the few things about the internet that doesn't make me hate the internet.
-
post-it
- Joined: Wed Jul 17, 2002 5:21 am
- Status: Hunting Tanks
- Location: Chilliwack - Fishing
Visual Art has nothing to do with Singing nor Directing.
.. it is rare that 1) the Director, 2) the Singer and 3) the Editors all see the same Visions of what the Video Should look like.
.. When we make AMV's WE are all three-in-one ( not many people realize this; when making an AMV, we have accidentally become what none of those three People could ever be on their own. )
and, yeah .. sometimes the song writer doesn't know "what" their inspiration has made them create.
Visual Art has nothing to do with Singing nor Directing.
.. it is rare that 1) the Director, 2) the Singer and 3) the Editors all see the same Visions of what the Video Should look like.
.. When we make AMV's WE are all three-in-one ( not many people realize this; when making an AMV, we have accidentally become what none of those three People could ever be on their own. )
and, yeah .. sometimes the song writer doesn't know "what" their inspiration has made them create.
Visual Art has nothing to do with Singing nor Directing.
-
JaddziaDax
- Crazy Cat Lady!
- Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 6:25 am
- Status: I live?
- Location: Somewhere I think O.o
- Contact:
more than likely because you have more of an emotional attachment to that game than you do to the footage they used for the real videolestheanimesarge wrote:I like a particular one, that uses footage from Kingdom Hearts. I suspect you have possibly seen it
Stalk me?
https://linktr.ee/jaddziadax
https://linktr.ee/jaddziadax
-
Sukunai
- Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 1:00 pm
- Location: Ontario Canada
Nope, I don't even like console games. I wouldn't know the game existed if my son didn't have it.JaddziaDax wrote:more than likely because you have more of an emotional attachment to that game than you do to the footage they used for the real videolestheanimesarge wrote:I like a particular one, that uses footage from Kingdom Hearts. I suspect you have possibly seen it
I just thought the footage better matched up the words of the song and the emotional context of the tune. I will admit the amv is a lot closer to rough than the top 10% selection is.
Anime, one of the few things about the internet that doesn't make me hate the internet.
-
JaddziaDax
- Crazy Cat Lady!
- Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 6:25 am
- Status: I live?
- Location: Somewhere I think O.o
- Contact:
but most real music videos arent about "matching the words" or even in a lot of cases even "matching the mood"
they are about making the musician look cool.
thats about it...
there ARE some directors out there that make some really awesome music videos that would easily drive over these amvs...
just because you have that one example that doesnt mean the rest of the music videos out there follow the same example...
for instance I have yet to see an amv to even come close to compare to the original music video for Bjork - All Is Full Of Love or Massive Attack - Tear Drop.
Although I saw a really neat fanvideo that incorporated Tear Drop's original footage rather cleverly into it, it wasn't really the same thing, as they were using the original mv as one of their sources.
they are about making the musician look cool.
thats about it...
there ARE some directors out there that make some really awesome music videos that would easily drive over these amvs...
just because you have that one example that doesnt mean the rest of the music videos out there follow the same example...
for instance I have yet to see an amv to even come close to compare to the original music video for Bjork - All Is Full Of Love or Massive Attack - Tear Drop.
Although I saw a really neat fanvideo that incorporated Tear Drop's original footage rather cleverly into it, it wasn't really the same thing, as they were using the original mv as one of their sources.
Stalk me?
https://linktr.ee/jaddziadax
https://linktr.ee/jaddziadax
-
SarahtheBoring
- Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2002 11:45 am
- Location: PA, USA
- Contact:
Saying "the videos on MTV suck, so all pro videos suck forever" is exactly the same as saying "the dubs on Fox Kids suck, so all anime sucks forever." No...just no. There are good videos out there, and if you've never seen any, you should go and find some. Because they're damn cool.
There are DVD collections for good directors and for various bands, some of whom try to pay for better-than-average videos. They're available for rent too. Hell, just watch Gondry's DVD. It will shut up the "all pro videos suck" fanboyism reeeeal quick.
Yes, most pro videos suck. But most AMVs suck too. That has no bearing on the fact that a few of them don't suck. It's very simple.
There are DVD collections for good directors and for various bands, some of whom try to pay for better-than-average videos. They're available for rent too. Hell, just watch Gondry's DVD. It will shut up the "all pro videos suck" fanboyism reeeeal quick.
Yes, most pro videos suck. But most AMVs suck too. That has no bearing on the fact that a few of them don't suck. It's very simple.
-
godix
- a disturbed member
- Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2002 12:13 am
There's different motives involved which goes a long way towards explaining why real music videos and AMVs are so different.
MTV doesn't make videos. They're just interested in the rating. They'll go with a video that is shocking and will cause buzz over a well crafted artistic video every time. There's a subset of the org that does the same, notably in hentai videos, but in general we're more interested in what artistic aspect attracted us to the video than we are in making something that will cause a buzz.
The musician usually doesn't make videos but many times will have input into it. So they A) have ideas that sound cool but just plain don't work and an experienced editor would know that B) Stuff that is, to put it simply, stupid or C) boost their ego. On the org we can play with ideas that don't work then scrap it and nothing major is lost, it's not like our paychecks depend on what we do. There's plenty of stupid stuff around but because we're rather limited in source there's kinda a limit on how stupid we can get (although some editors have gotten very creative at being stupid). And we definately aren't out to boost the singers ego, it's a very rare video that even shows the singer much less tries to make them look good.
Record companies want something that will sell more cds. They aren't concerned about artistic factors. If they have a choice of Britney Spears acting like a slut or an artistic quality video then they damn well want a closeup of Britney's tits, the more those jiggle the more cds are sold. The org editors can go with something more artistic that doesn't appeal to the base emotions if we want. And even if we do appeal to the base emotions, we aren't doing it for a buck.
Professional editors/video crew/etc mostly just do what they're paid to do. Sure, sometimes they have some artistic influence but generally they're told 'get a couple hoes and have them bump and grind with the singer while you record it. Fuck your ideas.'
The director has a lot of issues other than artistic to worry about. He has a deadline he's gotta meet so spending months on a video like some of us do isn't possible. He has financial concerns which we don't, aside from buying source. He has to keep the record companies and artists happy even if they're being fucking idiots. And, assuming he's good, he has to make sure none of this runs long so he can start work on the next paying job. I imagine most of them are interested in something more artistic but it isn't their primary concern. None of which applies to org editors.
OTOH the org a few really odd ideas on what makes a good video. As much as some bitch about effect whores, the org as a whole really loves them. Straight lyric sync often leads to scenes being used that just don't belong in the video. Internal sync is nice but AMVs tend to be so in your face about it that it's a detriment. There are times I just want to tell editors to go watch a real music video and figure out why it didn't do whatever stupidity the org editor decided to do.
MTV doesn't make videos. They're just interested in the rating. They'll go with a video that is shocking and will cause buzz over a well crafted artistic video every time. There's a subset of the org that does the same, notably in hentai videos, but in general we're more interested in what artistic aspect attracted us to the video than we are in making something that will cause a buzz.
The musician usually doesn't make videos but many times will have input into it. So they A) have ideas that sound cool but just plain don't work and an experienced editor would know that B) Stuff that is, to put it simply, stupid or C) boost their ego. On the org we can play with ideas that don't work then scrap it and nothing major is lost, it's not like our paychecks depend on what we do. There's plenty of stupid stuff around but because we're rather limited in source there's kinda a limit on how stupid we can get (although some editors have gotten very creative at being stupid). And we definately aren't out to boost the singers ego, it's a very rare video that even shows the singer much less tries to make them look good.
Record companies want something that will sell more cds. They aren't concerned about artistic factors. If they have a choice of Britney Spears acting like a slut or an artistic quality video then they damn well want a closeup of Britney's tits, the more those jiggle the more cds are sold. The org editors can go with something more artistic that doesn't appeal to the base emotions if we want. And even if we do appeal to the base emotions, we aren't doing it for a buck.
Professional editors/video crew/etc mostly just do what they're paid to do. Sure, sometimes they have some artistic influence but generally they're told 'get a couple hoes and have them bump and grind with the singer while you record it. Fuck your ideas.'
The director has a lot of issues other than artistic to worry about. He has a deadline he's gotta meet so spending months on a video like some of us do isn't possible. He has financial concerns which we don't, aside from buying source. He has to keep the record companies and artists happy even if they're being fucking idiots. And, assuming he's good, he has to make sure none of this runs long so he can start work on the next paying job. I imagine most of them are interested in something more artistic but it isn't their primary concern. None of which applies to org editors.
OTOH the org a few really odd ideas on what makes a good video. As much as some bitch about effect whores, the org as a whole really loves them. Straight lyric sync often leads to scenes being used that just don't belong in the video. Internal sync is nice but AMVs tend to be so in your face about it that it's a detriment. There are times I just want to tell editors to go watch a real music video and figure out why it didn't do whatever stupidity the org editor decided to do.
