MUSIC VIDEOS: ARE THEY STILL RELEVANT?
I know I gave Earache head honcho Digby Pearson some not-so-gentle ribbing a couple of weeks ago with regards to his defense of the indefensible re-thrash fad, but I still appreciate what he’s doing with his “straight talk” blog Ask Earache. In his latest entry, Pearson answers a reader question about the £25,000 budget the label spent on a music video for Cathedral in the early ’90s, a sum that would be considered ludicrous by today’s standards.
Pearson’s answer basically boils down to this: a) those were different days, b) equipment was way more expensive back then, c) there was major label money involved from Sony/Columbia. But I’d like to focus on (a), namely the role of the music video today vs. the ’80s, ’90s, and early ’00s. My argument: in these different times, who really needs a fancy-shmancy music video?
My good pal Axl spends a great deal of time analyzing the cinematic qualities of music videos, which is only natural as he went to film school. Personally, I don’t care as much; I view music videos as a promotional tool for a label and band to help spread the music to potential fans via one more avenue.
I used to love an awesome music video… LOVED them, taped them on my VHS, watched them over and over. But these days I don’t care as much; at best, I’ll watch a music video online and I’ll get into a band or song because of it, but I’ll never go and watch that video again. Even if it’s an amazingly, jaw-droppingly beautiful cinematic video. Videos just don’t play that role for me anymore, and I don’t think I’m alone here. The “charm” of music videos has worn off as their role in the entire music marketing canon has evolved. As far as I’m concerned, labels SHOULD be making low-budget, run-of-the-mill music videos because those kinds of videos serve the function that they need to in today’s music industry culture.
It used to be that getting a video a coveted MTV spot could result in an instant sales spike, and having a video in rotation could make a noticeable difference in a band’s popularity. Things are different now, and not just because MTV doesn’t play music videos anymore (especially metal); with an ever-fractured audience split into sub-sub-genres thanks to the endless choice offered by the Internet, there is no one “magic bullet” that results in a big sales bump for a band. Labels have adjusted their marketing plans accordingly to be a lot more diverse and organic, attempting to reach potential fans in every corner of their little universes instead of trying to make the big splash from above all at once. As such, shouldn’t the role, and therefore implementation, of music videos change too?
Given today’s tight music video budgets — especially in metal — it’s quite understandable that so many bands end up with the typical “band in a warehouse” clip. But my argument is this: who cares? At the end of the day, don’t we really want to see our heroes rocking out and [pretending to be] playing your favorite song? This kind of video serves exactly the purpose it needs to. There’s still value in making a music video in 2010, just not the same value there used to be… so what we end up with is a different, stripped-down kind of video.
What do you think? Do you still love music videos? Do you wish labels would spend more money on them or are you ok with a simple performance or band-in-a-warehouse clip?
-VN
