Such horrible video production....

[Blumlein 88]

It seems we are going backwards... This cost $50,000 to make and stands the test of time. (~43 years old)

Oh without a doubt. Very old film videos were either of bands playing shows and sometimes a collection of those. MTV at first had bands doing high concept videos to match their music and the intended ideas. For a time they were even using expensive film directors and producers. Not all were good, but many were. Then at some point, they all just starting making goofy eye catching garbage videos. Some of which are in opposition to what a song is about or at best a random bunch of nothing. Sort of the old AM radio top 40 effect only with videos. Good videos were mostly dead by the mid 1990's.

 

[Count Arthur]

Dave Grohl's finest hour?

 

[StephanB]

Economics of music videos by Frank Zappa.

 

[Triliza]

This fellow totally nailed the one man show

 

[Jimbob54]

It seems we are going backwards... This cost $50,000 to make and stands the test of time. (~43 years old)

I'm wondering where $45000 of that went.

 

[restorer-john]

I'm wondering where $45000 of that went.

LOL.

Probably hiring the video camera.

 

[JeffS7444]

Both the Daughter and Cyrus videos actually conceal a lot, and that is intentional I think. Wonder if the latter was shot on film, or at least someone wanted to make it look like it had been, like Quentin Tarantino's "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood".

 

[Marc v E]

I was anxious to listen to the latest track from one of my favorite bands, "Daughter," and saw this abomination of "official" music video:

Yes, she doesn't do herself any favors with that sleeping lip syncing but really, did the person editing and producing this video have such horrible talent? What is this low quality, garbage effect video?

And it is not just limited to low-budget indie production. Check out this latest video from Miley Cyrus. Take out the sexier scenes and it has zero merit:

Looks like they just showed up to her house with an iPhone and started to shoot random stuff.

Imo it's something similar to rap music of the 90's: showing of with qualities that are not there. Being famous while not being able to sing, showing of in newly bought ripped jeans or in case of Miley Cyrus a careless video because it it will be a succes anyway.

 

[beeface]

I was anxious to listen to the latest track from one of my favorite bands, "Daughter," and saw this abomination of "official" music video:

Yes, she doesn't do herself any favors with that sleeping lip syncing but really, did the person editing and producing this video have such horrible talent? What is this low quality, garbage effect video?

And it is not just limited to low-budget indie production. Check out this latest video from Miley Cyrus. Take out the sexier scenes and it has zero merit:

Looks like they just showed up to her house with an iPhone and started to shoot random stuff.

FWIW the first video is just pastiche with a degree of “it’s bad on purpose” irony.

Does that excuse it for being a bad video? No, I think the ironic pastiche thing is incredibly lazy.

Reminds me of another trend I’ve noticed lately which is the artistic decision to make music videos 4:3 aspect ratio. Maybe it makes the video easier to crop for portrait mode promo material, but still - who’d have thought we’d go back to 4:3 on purpose.

The second video reminds me of another one I dislike from Drake (who, like Miley, had made some good videos in the past). Bad song, too.

There have always been lots of bad music videos. And there are still good ones being made. But I do think music videos peaked creatively in the 90s, probably helped by record labels were willing to throwing more cash at video budgets. Although artists want YouTube views, I feel like music videos were more relevant when people still watched TV.

Both the Daughter and Cyrus videos actually conceal a lot, and that is intentional I think. Wonder if the latter was shot on film, or at least someone wanted to make it look like it had been, like Quentin Tarantino's "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood".

I agree with you about the Miley video. There’s artistic - even cinematic - intent, as evidenced by the aspect ratio. It does depict a starkness, isolation. Something something being rich and famous isn’t easy. Or has the character broken in?

But I do think the execution is lacking, and it feels a bit confused

 

[Triliza]

Miley Cyrus a careless video because it it will be a succes anyway

Aren't these kind of songs and clips for (pre)teens anyway? We can like them too (sometimes), but we are not their target group.

 

[amirm]

The Miley video got 190 million views so clearly people don't care like I do. It is just the shame when one knows how good her video (and music) could be:

1.1 billion views! I am in the wrong business.....

 

[bluefuzz]

who’d have thought we’d go back to 4:3 on purpose.

I don't know about music videos but I much prefer 4:3 aspect for movies. I wish you could get big flat screen TVs in 4:3. And 16:9 is terrible for laptop screens. Even 16:10 is so much better but 4:3 is better still ...

 

[audiofooled]

Both the Daughter and Cyrus videos actually conceal a lot, and that is intentional I think. Wonder if the latter was shot on film, or at least someone wanted to make it look like it had been, like Quentin Tarantino's "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood".

But it takes a lot of talent for this to work

Not only does it look like vintage car chases, I think it's nothing short of old Mad Max series and one of the most exciting I have ever seen. Also, car engine sound mixes made me hold on to my chair.

 

[AnalogSteph]

How about this low budget treadmill walking music video... It's an eye-opener for me, 13 years ago LMAO

That reminds me... (same continent, somewhat newer)

As one Maurice Powell notes in the comments,

As a matter of fact, it's a nod to Zbigniew Rybczyński's amazing music video work from the '80s. Check out Simple Minds' "All The Things She Said" and Pet Shop Boys' "Opportunities" (Version 2)...

Now when it comes to retro aesthetics, what about this...

They've got a whole bunch of good ones, actually.

And 16:9 is terrible for laptop screens. Even 16:10 is so much better but 4:3 is better still ...

Yeah, it makes no sense to go wide when the display isn't nearly filling your field of view to begin with. After a certain point, you can accommodate extra width much more easily than extra height, but your average laptop is far from that.

 

[beeface]

I don't know about music videos but I much prefer 4:3 aspect for movies. I wish you could get big flat screen TVs in 4:3. And 16:9 is terrible for laptop screens. Even 16:10 is so much better but 4:3 is better still ...

Out of interest, why do you prefer 4:3 for movies? I prefer 16:9, 2.39:1, really anything widescreen for TV and movies personally.

Totally agree with you on laptops and computer monitors though. 16:9 is simply not a good aspect ratio for PC use.

 

[GeekyBastard]

That reminds me... (same continent, somewhat newer)

I thoroughly enjoyed this Smoke Signals MV, much higher production value.

 

[bluefuzz]

Out of interest, why do you prefer 4:3 for movies? I prefer 16:9, 2.39:1, really anything widescreen for TV and movies personally.

Well, strictly speaking, it's probably Academy Ratio (1.375:1) I prefer. But often I find wider formats make for awkward compositions when containing people. Movies mostly contain pictures of people talking and doing stuff, and people are usually taller than they are wide. Maybe I'm just biased because I watch a lot of old movies ...

 

[Offler]

This is 1998 Meshuggah - New Millenium Cyanite Christ

Yes, its an official video, and the production quality is so legendary it became a meme

Later the singer Jens Kidman made another official video. All by himself

 

[Tks]

Out of interest, why do you prefer 4:3 for movies? I prefer 16:9, 2.39:1, really anything widescreen for TV and movies personally.

Totally agree with you on laptops and computer monitors though. 16:9 is simply not a good aspect ratio for PC use.

Don't let the 21:9 crowd see you say this