30frames

Like an infant burping up his dinner, the internet offers up new content and then it goes away – only to reappear on another site where Mommy comes in and wipes it off again.

The most recent one of the ‘watch this link before it goes away’ clips is the Kanye-Spike Jonze collaboration for ‘We Were Once a Fairytale.’ I gather this is a mini-movie and not technically a music video, but that hardly matters.

Kanye does some of the most interesting things in popular culture today – whether it is his wide-ranging blog, his ALL CAPS rantings or his awards show appearances. On that note, what do we want Kanye to do at the VMAs? In my mind we need him to act like the Lord of the Egos. Of course that is what ‘Ye is gonna do, that is his role. Did we want the 1989 version of Axl Rose to come to the VMAs and sit quietly in his seat like a good boy? No, we wanted Axl to swig from a bottle and make a messy fool of himself. In that vein, I praise Kanye’s lack of self restraint. Hooray for rock stars!

Kanye also does some of the most interesting videos. This clip with Spike certainly falls into the ‘I’m glad they made this’ category – even if it does go on a bit long. The link is below (or it was at the time of posting) so watch it and mind the spoilers.

‘Fairytale’ is a lengthy set-up with a pay-off that is both surprising and somewhat expected. I was a little bored by the end and the ‘twist’ was not really a shocker. The main problem was the eight minutes of the part leading up to that. In stand-up comedy, the phrase is ‘a long walk to the store’ – the kind of set-up than can render any punch line muted because the audience has ceased to pay close attention.

And the very end, where ‘Ye offers his inner furball a miniature knife, and I kept expecting the little guy to pull another internal tormentor out of his own miniature gut. The point of that (imagined by me) ending would have been, ‘All of us have us have our own demons,’ but the ending Spike and ‘Ye went with instead says, ‘Poor Kanye, it’s not his fault.’

On the other hand, I guess that re-twist I suggested may have been avoided to lessen the already inevitable comparisons to another ‘pulled out of the chest’ clip.

watch: Kanye - We Were Once a Fairytale - dir: Spike Jonze

watch: Gnarls Barkley - Who's Gonna Save My Soul - dir: Chris Milk

In any event, the above is probably better than your beauty/rock climbing video making everyone think of a Marine Corps recruitment commercial.

watch: Alicia Keys - Doesn't Mean Anything

Labels: Chris Milk, label, leaks, music video, Spike Jonze, video link

So today is Labor Day and on this second most American of holidays (after ‘Bring your Gun to Work Day’) what better band to focus on for a MAPS than the one that loves America the most - U2. Sorry, chest thumping country artists, your love for America pales in comparison to that of Bono, Adam, Larry and the guy that refuses to admit he is bald.

‘Where the Streets Have No Name’ was shot in 1987 at the corner of Seventh and Main in downtown Los Angeles by director Meiert Avis. Mr. Avis has been shooting videos since the very, very early days and on VideoStatic you can see he is still booking jobs today. I look at the depth on that credit list and I wonder why he doesn’t get as much credit as some other video pioneers. Maybe he should use more camera tricks.

The video for U2 takes place is the very commonly shot downtown section of LA. It is not far from the Tower Theater and at the edge of the seriously skeevy skid row area. Perhaps this location full of homeless folks was a purposeful tie in to the ‘no name’ aspect of the streets. More likely, it was one of the few places that would let a rock band play on the roof for a few hundred bucks.

Check out the map and click onto streetview - the place on the corner is still a liquor store, but the name has changed. Watch the video of 'Where the Streets Have No Name' here.

The beginning of the ‘Streets’ clip has lots of lead in before the song starts – something other videos would try to copy without much success. The live LA radio warning about traffic and the quality of the neighborhood (so maybe not that much has changed in LA) and the threats from the LAPD that the production was going to get shut down was all very effective.

It seems to me, re-watching the video, that the band got more than one run-through of the track, but the finished video makes it seem like po-po was closing the set down AS they were shooting. The video is a classic and it gets referenced all the time for new jobs – even twenty years later.

For more U2-ish fun, check out the feature documentary ‘It Might Get Loud’ starring the Edge, Jack White and Jimmy Page. The music is amazing and it is great to see Mr. Jimmy looking so lively and rocking at 65.

Labels: MAPS, music video, on the set, u2, videostatic

A decade ago in music videos, if a label wanted a director for a specific job, and the director knew he was the first choice, that director could come up with a concept that cost more than the label’s desired budget. If they wanted to spend $400k on a budding pop-diva’s first single, the director could add in some helicopter shots or post effects and get the budget up to $550k – and a lot of the times the label would agree, because they wanted THIS director just that much.

Obviously, those days are long gone. The seller’s market has become a buyer’s market and the labels barely care which director they hire – as long as the final budget hits their target number. As a business strategy, this makes a lot of sense for the labels – they aren’t moving units like they used to and cost-certainty is key.

That ‘back in the day’ director was over-amping his treatment because he wanted to shoot some helicopter shots for his feature reel or try a new post-effect AND to drive the budget higher so his ten-percent (and the exec producer’s as well) would be worth more.

But today’s video directors write outlandishly un-doable ideas for a whole other reason. It seems that everyone in 2009 is ‘stuffing his bra’ to cut through the treatment clutter and deliver an idea that might actually get them noticed by the over-worked commissioner.

The over-the-top concept may jump off the page and get the label folks interested – especially if they are new-ish to the game and don’t know what production actually costs. No matter how wonderful this new and super-expensive idea might be, there is still no more money coming – so the 'too big' ideas simply end up being a waste everyone’s time. Sure, modern technology and ‘one man band’ directors who do their own editing and/or digital effects (and art department AND cinematography) can get a lot done for small bucks – but ‘getting creative’ with the budget only goes so far.

I saw one concept recently that had the whole video shot with the artists and a gorgeous actress (possibly famous! – yeah right) suspended in harnesses above the floor. Not a single scene, or a cutaway was done with this wire harness ‘floating effect’ – but the whole freaking video. Do you know how hard that is? The talent has to get into position with their legs dangling and then try to look cool/sexy/whatever while not letting the strain of mega-wedgies effect their performance. Wire shots are accomplished a few minutes at a time so the talent can be lowered to prevent gangrene of the leg from setting in. Doesn’t matter how much you can record on the latest high tech digital video camera without reloading – most of the footage will be of the artist reaching for their aching crotch or struggling to sway themselves in the desired part of the frame. Plus, this idea took place inside a typical suburban house – which would have low ceilings and no place to rig the wires out of frame above the action. It would take three days (at least) to shoot this idea and I am not even talking about the cost to remove the wires in post – because that was part of the idea as well. Oh, and the budget for this job was UNDER $20k.

That is just an example. I have seen concepts that involved the whole video taking place at night on the slanted roof of an old church (not via green screen). How does the talent stand up there? How many hours does it take to hand-carry all of the heavy lights and equipment up to that unstable and dangerous roof? I have seen concepts with the artist photographed in dozens of different cities, but minus any explanation how or why the artist and the director would take months out of their lives to shoot this multi-state concept for under forty-thousand. No amount of cutting edge technique or film-school endeavor will bend the laws of physics. The Red Camera doesn’t magically create 47 hours of sunlight in a day.

The capper on lots of these impossible to pull off concepts is that the ‘look’ is explained as being like some amazing photograph (Crewdson perhaps?) or a feature film that won awards for the DP. Really?!? So you are going to shoot in some crazed state (hanging from the ceiling, on a roof trying to beat the dawn, rushing to a million locations) and at the same time, generate world class photography?

Certainly the labels must bear some of the weight of this craziness. Commissioners say things like ‘Yeah, this (something actually do-able) idea is fine but it doesn’t seem special.’ That is the kind of ‘creative brief’ that sends directors off into a fantasy-land of un-affordable gags and effects – trying to find something, anything that will catch the eye of those with money to spend. The director wants the job, so they add in more stuff until the treatment feels ‘special’, and everyone’s time is wasted. But it is on the director’s shoulders to come up with a variety of ‘special’ that isn’t just throwing more (imaginary) money at the problem.

I bet the director that submits the second act of Apocalypse Now as his treatment for the $12k job is also the one complaining about the crappy job done by the director that eventually DID get hired when the video finally gets posted on antville. Comparing what someone else did in the world of reality with their own fantasy inside their head, probably has them always coming out on top.

Commissioners and labels like the idea that their measly budget will go as far as possible. And they LOVE the idea that talented and creative people are willing to scrap over the tiny opportunity they have on offer. But, even if the swinging on invisible wires extravaganza grabs the attention of the label, and even if the VP of Brand Marketing loves the idea – it is going to eventually land on the desk of a line producer who is going to enter real numbers into a real spreadsheet and call ‘bullshit’ on the whole process. Or even scarier, maybe the line producer drinks the kool-aid (under duress from the exec producer?) and then the director has to go out and actually turn the overblown concept into a finished video.

Punishment equals answered prayers and all that.

Side note, Mark Cuban wrote something quite fun about the opposite problem – hyping up and overselling a nothing idea with catch phrases and buzzwords. I think every director writing a concept should take this message to heart as well.

Labels: antville, death, insider, music video, on the set, philosophy, prod co

It's hard to believe I have neglected to link to this guy, perhaps I am just jealous that he is a commissioner AND out of the blogging closet. Tim Nash works at Atlantic UK, but I love him because he posts the good shit.

Anyone involved in music video production must read In Your Face. Yes, he jumbles up the capitalization, but my rum-and-silver-polish cocktail is really kicking in now, and there was no way I was gonna get that right.

My favorites are his posts on cliche-ridden treatment writing, spotty lip-synch, and riding the bus on Wilshire.

Delve deep and enjoy.

Labels: insider, music video, on the set, philosophy

As part of the very popular ‘MAPS series’ here is part two, the Tower Theater in downtown Los Angeles. The Tower was built in the mid 1920s, a fertile period for the kind of construction that is a boon to music videos hungry for production value.

Downtown LA has a couple streets and corners that can convincingly play the role of a big city on the East Coast – one of the reasons that lots of videos get shot in a handful of blocks. The recent economic downturn might be bad for the recent condo-splosion and loftapalooza going on in the formerly deserted-after-dark downtown core of the city – but maybe empty buildings will make it easier to get a permit. Nearby the Tower are some other spots that get even more ‘work’ – but we’ll get to them later.

I picked out a couple videos that have been shot at the Tower, but I am sure that many, many others have used the moody, yet ornate interior to great effect. Feel free to post any other links you can think of in the comments below.

The recent My Chemical Romance clip off the Watchmen soundtrack was shot inside and outside the Tower. The decrepit but grand interior does a good job of complimenting the MCR performance, and the neighborhood definitely adds to the 'Desolation Row' vibe. My impression is that they are giving Mr. Zimmerman the flavor of the punk group Generation X – Billy Idol’s original band. Gerard even breaks out the Madonna-esque faux-Brit accent. Outside the theater the kids get all aggro.

You can see even more of the Tower’s look with some Watchmen EPK, behind the scenes footage.

Chris Brown’s “With You” uses the streets around the Tower (one would assume) as well as the vertical marquee as the backdrop for the main performance. As the camera circles over and around Breezy you can’t see the handcuffs, but you can see the Tower in the background and the director’s name added onto the outside of the theater.

Poke around on the Tower Google Street View and I bet you can see all kinds of music video hot spots near Broadway and 8th.

Labels: MAPS, music video, My Chemical Romance, on the set, video link, videostatic, YouTube

I know, two posts in a week. It's like the old days.

Idolator linked to this post on Tripwire about a super-indie band called Team Robespierre and their recent, failed, efforts to get one of their videos played. The video has a very, um, “home made” quality to it – but apparently MTV was allegedly going to air the clip on Subterranean. The post is a blow-by-blow of how the band got the run around and felt abused by ‘the system.’

Here is a quote from the Tripwire article:

So a year after the record came out, over six months after the video debuted on Pitchfork, three months after it’s initially scheduled MTV2 air date and lots of wasted money we were given a “maybe” in early 2009. That was until we got the news that the person we had been dealing with was laid off in December. Now, not only was the status of the video up in the air, but we had no one to talk to about it.

Most of the commenters on Tripwire and Idolator have ripped the writer, who is not in the band but somehow helping them get their video not played. This does come across as some pretty spoiled baby stuff and it made me think of lots of articles I have been reading about employers, back when the economy had ‘employers,’ needing to adapt to deal with the self-absorbed attitude of recent college graduates.

This is from the Daily Mail:

Others expect to be pandered to and lack initiative, according to the report, based on responses from 217 graduate employers including investment banks, law and accountancy firms. In one case, a new recruit to a transport company was overheard on the phone to his mother saying: "I have got to go to London tomorrow and they haven't even told me how to get there."

Certainly the band misunderstood many, many things about the video airing process. All videos on television must be close captioned. Mean ole MTV didn’t make them do that – the FCC did.

The MTV programmer that liked the video enough to push it forward was replaced and the new person was not enthusiastic. Oh well, sometimes you drop your ice cream cone on the sidewalk and Allah/Jesus/Iovine doesn’t magically grant you new one.

Yes, there were silly standards and practices edits that seem hypocritical coming from he network that airs Tila Tequila. But you know what kids? Your Mommy and Daddy say you shouldn’t drink – but they (gasp) do it themselves. I could go on and on about how these kids don’t get it (too late, I know).

Obviously, Team Robespierre has already gotten more attention off this ‘scandal’ than they would have if their video had actually aired on MTV. So good for them, despite their ‘poor little hipster’ whines.

The larger issue, in my eyes, is this intersection of the amateur and the professional. Getting your band’s video up on Youtube is easy – you just post it and it is there. Granted, even YouToogle has Standards & Practices and rights issues. Once the video is there, who says it will rack up any more views than grandma’s birthday party.

As long as artists want the benefits of the professional end of the music industry – they are going to have to play by the pro’s rules. And with AMTV suddenly showing (shocker!) music videos on MTV – there might be more opportunity there.

The recent crumbling of the music label empire has made going amateur the rule – in recording music and in making music videos as well. We could argue about whether or not Team Robespierre would ever get signed to a ‘real’ label, and I am sure that the band might reply with, ‘We don’t want your smelly label, old man!’ But when the young punks want their precious video on the old man’s MTV, a label might come in handy.

Labels: insider, media, MTV, music video, trainwreck, video link, videostatic

This is, I freely admit, an odd idea for a post and I imagine doing more of these, but who knows how that will really turn out.

In 1995 Spike shot a video for the band Wax – the one where the guy runs in super slow motion to catch the bus. You know, the video where the public transportation enthusiast just happens to be on fire. It made a stink with MTV at the time because of the fire and the possibility that MTV’s viewership might be inspired to set themselves alight. This seems like a silly worry on the part of the people in charge – no one watching MTV is that colossally dumb. The Gs to Gents guys are all on MTV, not watching.

I started wondering where that video had been shot and, at the end of the clip, a glimpse of the sign for TOI, a hipster Thai restaurant on Sunset Blvd gave me the answer. Not far from the mullet-topia known as the Guitar Center and surrounded by shops selling drums, amplifiers and the like – this section of Sunset gives a very rock and roll vibe.

Check out the map and click onto streetview - the place on the corner is still a guitar shop, but the name has changed. Watch the video of 'Southern California' here.

In ‘Southern California,’ the station wagon starts on Gardner, north of Sunset with the camera pointed west. The bus that Mister Burny Pants is pursuing is on Sunset itself. That’s it, pretty simple and not much of a story to it – but I find this kind of stuff fascinating.

There is one bit of story. Famous director (Maltese Falcon) and actor (Chinatown) John Huston seems to have run over a pedestrian at this intersection back in the 20s/30s.

According to a documentary film about Huston's life, he struck and killed a female pedestrian with his car at the corner of Gardner and Sunset in Los Angeles when he was in his late 20s. He was exonerated of wrongdoing at the follow-up inquest. - wiki

Labels: MAPS, music video, on the set, Spike Jonze

Lots of videos get made with some kind of ulterior motive in mind.

• Maybe the director wants to shoot a car crash for his reel.
• Maybe the label is getting a big wad of cash to promote a movie.
• The label might be promoting a product for money. (Hello, PCD)
• The artist might be promoting their own line of clothing/vodka/acne cream. (Hola, Puff)
• Maybe the artists just wanna party with some bikini clad babes. (Hello, EVERYONE)
  

None of those are shocking or unexpected. I am sure there are other examples I am not thinking of right now. But this led me to think about another, more serious category of ulterior motives – affecting the legal system.

The one getting press right now is T.I. and his “I’m sorry I tried to buy machine guns world tour.” As part of Mr. Harris’ reduced sentencing he is required to speak with kids. The King of the South has an MTV show revealing how much he has changed. ‘Road to Redemption’ is kind of like ‘Scared Straight’ but less scary and more self-serving.

There was the 2001 Jigga/Kells duet on “Guilty Until Prove Innocent” where the chorus calls of ‘Not Guilty’ seem to be general references to R Kelly’s many legal troubles rather than a specific plea for leniency. Kells has a thing for the US legal system, but TI seems to be the first artist to use his music video, "Dead and Gone," as an actual part of his sentence/rehabilitation. Is Timberlake a character witness? “The old me is dead and gone – I SWEAR your honor!”

The music career as mea culpa seems to have worked, TI is to be sentenced this month (March 2009) and he is supposed to get a year and a day of time. It is likely that TI (like all prisoners) serves much less time than that. It is still a long stretch inside for a guy used to fame and fortune, but better than the 5+ years he was facing. Do Chris Robinson and Timberlake get part of the defense team’s retainer?

I wonder if Chris Brown is watching? Now that CB is having his Kids Choice nomination pulled, and with the legal system leaving Kells alone to follow HIM, how long until Chris Brown releases a song/video about how sorry he is? Perhaps that is the duet they are allegedly recording.

Labels: Chris Brown, controversy, MTV, music video, Timberlake, video link, videostatic

If you read this blog, I am sure you have heard about the new music video site 99dollarmusicvideos. I realize I am a bit late to the game since the site has been getting talked up on Videostatic, Idolator and the Ville (where 99$V has drawn less commentary than the ‘controversy’ about Kanye and data-moshing).

The idea behind 99$V is a clever one and will surely draw attention to a few interesting directors and recording artists. This kind of site is not the ‘cause’ of anything bad, but it does indicate where the music video industry is right now – and that is no place very good. This is essentially a video contest, and (as I have written before) those do attract some attention but usually don’t make the best videos.

My first thought was that the glossy intro graphics package on the site (you can see it at the head of a ‘making of’ video) cost way more than the video that followed. Heh, irony.

Any video created within the constraints of the website’s rules – one day shoot, one day edit, spend only $99 AND make a video of how the shoot went down to prove the budget was followed) – is destined to have limitations. That is fine in theory, but for a director, putting an artificially limited video out there for all to see might be problematic – even if doing it in a day for less than a hundred bucks IS an accomplishment. Kind of like going on a job interview after strictly allowing yourself just 15 minutes to shave, shower AND type up a resume – that rumpled and harried person is you, but maybe not the best way to get hired in the future.

The triangle. Good, fast or cheap – you can pick two but not three. Guess which one is gonna get left out of the $99 videos shot in 24 hours?

The formula on the site works great – if you want to see the drama of 'the struggle' like a reality TV show. Watching the designer-contestants on 'Project Runway' rush to make a cocktail dress out of recycled plastics and $17 worth of buttons in less than four hours is much, much more interesting than seeing the resultant garment. Or wearing the half-junk dress, for that matter.

The goal of the 99$V site is to get viewers for Verizon ads – which is a fine and noble goal. The best way to do that is to show us the drama of a harried director grinding to get the video done in the allotted time for the tiny budget. If the resulting music video helps the band's (or the director's) career very much is secondary.

The ‘behind the scenes’ videos are more intriguing (at least to my drunken eye) than the actual music videos. More than anything, maybe that shows us where music videos are at these days.

Labels: contest, hipsters, insider, music video, video link, viral video

Good news, DJ Khaled is still alive, and nowhere near the white Bentley roaming LA in a slow speed pursuit. But, the Miami based DJ/producer might have been depressed because the best-ever Khaled music video got made – and he wasn’t even in it.

On Saturday Night Live, the Lonely Island guys did a digital short for a song of their new album, Incredibad. The song “I’m on a Boat” is just about the best Khaled song ever with shouty ultra-obvious raps and Auto-tuned choruses from T-Pain. Yes, T-Pain.

It speaks to the state of the music industry when Khaled, Gil Green and all the other Miami-philes can’t muster a budget this big for a ‘real’ music video, but these comedy guys can. Damn, Sandberg even got a helicopter shot.

It will really be something if Incredibad punks the new U2 album opening week.

Watch the "I'm on a Boat" video here.

Labels: controversy, music video, u2, video link, viral video

So John Landis, the director of the most famoustest music video ever, is suing Michael Jackson for a portion of the profits from 'Thriller.' The shocker is that the contract actually says that Landis is entitled to 50% of the profits.

I saw this over on VideoStatic yesterday. The story is big news, especially since Jackson is selling the rights to 'Thriller' off to a company that will try and turn the video into a Broadway musical.

I think the point is that only now, with a big check (possibly) coming in from a theater producer – does it make sense for Landis to launch this suit. There have been a few times when directors saw hope that they might get a piece of the music video ‘profits,’ like when iTunes starting to sell videos. Remember way back when?

The problem is that there are never or almost never profits from music videos – since MVs are loss leaders for other revenue streams and MVs don’t make any money themselves.

'Thriller' is obviously the (possible) super mega-exception to this – and probably has generated some money. If 'Thriller' (the video) did make money, then it is probably the ONLY music video to ever do so. Sure videos help (helped?) CDs and cassettes (does anybody remember laughter) get sold – but that is, in and of itself, NOT making money with the video, that is promotion. Landis seems to be claiming that the video has made $2mil so he should get half of that. Who knows how much it has really made, since labels and entertainment contracts are notoriously good at hiding the back-end money from the creative types.

The other thing to remember is that Thriller was made in 1983, just two years into the existence of MTV. Back then there was no ‘standard’ contract for music videos – it was all new territory. I'm sure this contributed to the label/MJ letting Landis have a juicy 50 points of anything, even the imaginary "profits".

The contract (linked to on VS) didn’t seem set any precedents and it doesn't seem like any other directors have had the clout to get a contract like the one Landis did. In 1983 Landis was a huge, huge director. His 'American Werewolf in London' was a mega-hit and was the obvious inspiration for MJ to wanna do the 'Thriller' video (and maybe even the song) in the first place. Sadly, the Landis deal was not a precedent for future MV directors.

Other thoughts from reading the contract:

1. The budget for ‘Thriller’ seemed to be $513,769. Obviously they went way, way over that. So the ‘profits’ might have been gobbled up right there.
2. Going in, they planned on a 'making of documentary' about the video - something that was way ahead of its time.
3. It seems that Rick Baker, who did the make-up FX for 'Thriller' and 'American Werewolf', might be in line for a percentage of the back-end as well, maybe out of Landis’s half.
4. This is a good place to mention Indian Thriller.

Labels: Indian Thriller, label, media, MTV, music video, un-Indian Thriller, video link, videostatic, YouTube

Happy New Year to all!

Hey, I got some mail. Okay, not really mail, but over on the ‘Ville, a poster named budget added the following comment:

Would you please weigh in on this article: Music Industry Looks To Internet For Revival Particularly this quote: "Universal Music, the industry leader, has said that it makes “tens of millions of dollars” from YouTube." We're making 10k videos that end up making their labels millions of dollars! We're still getting screwed over!!!

Okay, here is me weighing in …

First of all, click on over to the Financial Times and read the brief article. While doing that, remember it is the FINANCIAL F^&%ING TIMES. Everything in that article is skewed towards investors and potential investors. If ‘High Times’ magazine covered the recent Presidential election (maybe they did, my subscription ran out) you can bet that HT focused on which candidate would make it easier for their readership to get high. Financial Times has just as skewed a world view. FT is all about telling investor/readers where they might (or might not) want to put their money. The info in that article is bound to be massaged, but doesn’t mean it ain’t useful.

The fact that Warner and Youtube/Google are beefing over the percentages means that there IS some money to be made from the ads that run over and alongside the videos. The “Music industry looks to internet for revival” headline at least seems reasonable. But how much money is really there?

This is where the waters will get murky. You gotta remember the recent financial collapse was preceded by lots and lots and lots of articles in FT and Wall Street Journal about how the markets and the economy and the mortgage universe was doing just peachy. The financial press is full of ridiculously upbeat projections and predictions that are not justified by real-world facts – these kind of publications are often more cheerleaders than news sources. (Note that I have taken down last year’s prediction that the shoot for the film ‘Vicky Christina Barcelona’ would turn into a Penelope Cruz – 30f – Scarlett Johansson sandwich. Sigh.)

Anyway – take any and all income predictions and earnings estimates with a Fat Joe-sized grain of salt. Here is the quote that perturbed mr. budget - “Universal Music, the industry leader, has said that it makes “tens of millions of dollars” from YouTube.” Now contrast that with “Hulu and YouTube would make about $70m and $100m respectively in US advertising revenues in 2008” from a little farther down in that same article. How do those things fit together? (Hint, they don't.)

Now, Uni is a big player, but if YouToogle as a whole is making $100million per year (and this estimate might be as cooked up as the financial health of AIG and Fannie Mae) then how could Universal possibly be getting that much? I am unsure what the sharing arrangement is, but if YouTube makes a hundred mil, the copyright owners probably don’t get an equal share – so the copyright owners of YouTube clips can’t be getting the ‘same’ $100 mil, can they?

Back to Universal. Uni’s supposed “tens of millions” means multiples of ten, right? So “tens of millions” means at least twenty in my book. That is 20% of YouTube’s (alleged) total revenue (and forgetting for now that the split is unlikely to be 50/50). I imagine Uni might earn 20% of the music video based revenue on YouToogle, but music videos are a fraction of all the content on YouTube. A popular fraction to be sure, but if YouToogle brings in $100m, much of that must come from wedding videos, skateboarding tips and dogs eating burritos, right?

This leads me to the conclusion that it is highly unlikely that Universal makes what they are saying off of YouTube videos. There are plenty of other claims in that article that can be parsed, but you get the point. Like fisherman, businessman make big, boastful claims. Especially if they are trying to convince shareholders that all is well.

Now, onto the most salient part of budget’s comment/question: “We're making 10k videos that end up making their labels millions of dollars! We're still getting screwed over!!!”

Yes, plenty of directors have budgets of $10k or less to make videos, and these do end up on the internet and they might be earning the record label some cash. But my guess would be that Britney, Jay-Z and their fellow megastars earn the majority of the online revenue for a label and plenty of the low-end jobs (let’s say the $10k range) attract way, way less viewers and thus less ad revenue. It is unlikely that Universal is earning their (fictional?) tens of millions off of the low-end jobs. Long tail and all that.

The real reason that MV budgets were big in the 90s was competition. To get played on MTV, a video had to beat out rival videos for limited air time. TRL and other prime spots on Viacom's cable-waves were prime real estate. As more and more videos got made, the labels had to spend more and more to attract the eye of MTV’s programmers and win those scarce slots. This led to the kind of budgetary arms race that brought us Puffy’s ‘Victory’ and O-Town’s ode to nocturnal emissions ‘Liquid Dreams.’

But, now, with the ‘air time’ on the ‘Net being limitless – why should a label pull out the budgetary big guns? A once scarce resource (exposure for the videos) has suddenly become free. The labels need to attract eyeballs, but the eyeballs they are after are now the end consumers and not a conference room full of people at 1515 Boadway, and winning that attention seems to be based more on having a hot song or a visual hook (i.e. synchronized treadmills) rather than massive post effects or stunts like the ‘big’ videos of old.

So, budget, does that help any? It doesn’t make that $10k budget stretch any farther, but hopefully you’ll see that the labels likely aren’t raking in the money off Youtube clicks for Shwayze. To be honest, $10k is probably an appropriate amount to spend on a music video if the label is hoping to get a few dollars back from YouTube advertising.

If we don’t like the budgets the labels offer, we can always turn the jobs down. Ha.

Anyway, I won’t turn down questions. Send me an email or drop a comment below.

Labels: label, mail, MTV, music video, philosophy, prod co, TRL, video link, viral video, YouTube

Lots of interest (okay, nerdly on-line levels of interest) about a recent study in the UK that seems to indicate that our economy 3.0 savior, the Long Tail, may not have nearly as much salvation on board as some have hoped.

Read the London Times article and the thoughtful response from Mike at Idolator. Between bouts of overdosing on rum balls and Kiefer-ing my Christmas tree I decided to add in my on two pence.

My understanding of 'the Long Tail' is that all those sales of obscure items (books for Amazon, music for iTunes) will eventually make money for the retailer. That is what makes it a viable economic theory, it works for the company selling the individual bits of rarely desired stuff – not necessarily for the creator of the things being sold.

If the overhead is low enough – cheap rent to store all of Amazon’s books in warehouses in remote Kentucky or Utah, or even cheaper hard-drives full of audio files in Cupertino for iTunes – then selling one of something per year can theoretically be profitable. As long they are also selling one per year of many, many, many other things.

This is where people seemed to get confused – the Long Tail works for the retailer, not the maker of the music or book. The Long Tail, and this new British study seems to back this up, makes no guarantees that this kind of economy of smallish scale will work out for the actual content creator. In fact, it kind of shows that it doesn’t.

For a long time (pre-digital) the record labels hunted for hits believing that the blockbuster (as in movies and most other entertainments) were the things that propped up the company while they searched for the next hit. A small number of really successful artists/albums would allow labels to sign and promote enough new artists to find the next hit-maker (and also the hundreds of duds and failures that actually soak up the majority of the profits from Michael Jackson or the Crue).

My take on this is that this study does not contradict the Long Tail theory at all. This study shows exactly what the Long Tail theory would predict – amongst the handful of things that do sell, there are many things not selling much if at all.

Look at the famous Long Tail chart with that sliver of yellow extending out to the right. That is the ‘Tail,’ the vein of gold that can be mined for unanticipated (and untold?) profits. This study from the Times does not focus on the narrow sliver of sales – this study is about ALL that white space above the yellow. All the digital songs that don’t get sold, or maybe not even searched for. The study doesn’t say there is no gold in the mine, their numbers just reveal there is lots of worthless dirt piled on and around the nuggets of gold. Lots and lots of dirt.

My two main conclusions:

1. The Long Tail might work in the real world. Maybe, maybe not – this study doesn’t seem to prove or disprove the relevancy of the theory. I think the main factor in the workability of Long Tail-style sales is how low the seller can get the friction. How little overhead can they have and how much raw earth can they have on hand to allow customers to sift through to find their own personal gold. Maybe it is not possible in the real world for this to truly work (like perpetual motion) – but these new numbers don’t really shine much light on it.
2. Being the artist creating the records that sell zero copies (or even the ‘winner’ that sells one) in a year must be no fun. But that, too, is not anything new.

Here’s to a fat tail (heh, heh) in 2009. Happy Holidays and a joyful New Year.

Labels: controversy, death, download, insider, media, music video, un-Indian Thriller, YouTube

If a musical act or artist is good (or lucky) they get to stick around long enough to have a lengthy and profitable career. If they are really good (or extra lucky) they might stick around so long they don’t want to be in their own videos any more.

This post is about the game of ‘hide a band’ that certain videos play. Squirreling away the artist in the deep background (or out of the clip all together) because their looks no longer appeal to the demographic is a tried and true technique.

Let’s be clear. I am NOT talking about the kind of (often indie/alt/dance) artists that never appear in their own videos. I am also not talking about a creative concept that is based around not showing the performance (Smack My Bitch Up) – especially if the artist has other clips that do feature them prominently (Firestarter).

I am also NOT talking about the director that often chooses to use flaming people or dancing Oscar Winners. This ‘no star on screen’ idea goes way back (Queen) – and can often make for highly effective clips. I am also not talking about putting supermodels or Fletch in your video as surrogates, none of these videos mentioned above really seem to qualify as band hiding.

The phenomenon I am talking about is an artist who has been front and center in their videos, but then – as age and the rock and roll lifestyle take their toll – they step aside to let a younger face carry the day. Hide-a-band is actually easiest to recognize when you look for a clip that the artist/band is in, but their performance is pushed to the margins. The artist is there, but like a magician’s assistant – wouldn’t you really rather look at someone pretty?

The past masters of this genre are clearly Aerosmith. With their dueling Silverstone videos for ‘Cryin’ and ‘Crazy’ – the band was able to keep the parking lots rocking by giving the MTV viewers some age appropriate eye candy to distract them from the parent-aged musicians who actually made the songs. Aerosmith was IN these videos, but the focus was definitely moved over to someone or something else.

Bon Jovi used this approach with ‘It’s My Life’ where the video spends most of its time with a teen-friendly protagonist fighting his way towards the band’s performance. The New Jersey rockers are definitely in the clip – but there are plenty of stunts performed by a teen to make viewers think of their own, obstacle plagued adolescence rather that marveling at ‘What the f&*% happened to the guitarist’s face?!?’

Mick gave us Shannyn Sossamon, Lenny Kravitz and some nausea inducing body-mounted cameras so we wouldn’t notice that he was not with the rest of the Stones.

Elton John even had a young and sexy Timberlake play Elton John, well before he got the gigs box dicking and jizz mopping.

There must be more. I keep thinking there was a late-period George Michael clip like this. Send any suggestions along while I hide my ancient visage over here behind some parkour guys or hipster skateboarders.

Labels: aerosmith, celebrity, He Who Is Always Named, hipsters, Isham, Madonna, MTV, music video, Prodigy, Timberlake, YouTube

Hey guys,

It has been a long time since I posted. How long? Well the stock market was still a place you might want your money. Tina Fey was still most famous for her ‘day job’ on 30 Rock.

Also, that was before the launch of MTVmusic.com. I have lost major stretches of my waking life clicking around through the old clips on mtvmusic. Yeah, for the intertubes!

Other sections of the net still do some music video things better than mtvmusic. Youtube gets the latest Britney news out there. Onsmash still has the best collection of what is ‘new’ at least for urban music (and stony studio interviews). Right now mtvmusic is kind of a nostalgia machine (check the top viewed list for Buggles and Dire Straits) – but I assume that as the site develops it will get more ‘modern’ traffic.

I wish mtvmusic had a better ‘these are the newest clips we have added’ section. Even the main mtv site does that better. I wish that the ‘date added’ for the videos on mtvmusic was the date the video was released to MTV and not just the date some intern added the digital file to an mtv server. Didja know ZZ Top’s ‘Sharp Dressed Man’ was from 2007?

But these are minor quibbles. The picture quality on mtvmusic is great compared to the YouToogles. You can sort by director and see that two of the first three Isham-helmed clips are Metallica and the third is Nsync. They even have the alternate ‘pop-up’ versions of some clips.

Older videos never aired on MTV with director’s credits. Who knew, way back in 1988 that there even was such a thing as a music video director? Some of these classic clips have had the once unlisted credit included on mtvmusic. Others have not.

update: Check out the old-school opening slate on 'Billie Jean' - a hand-written label off the original tape box.

Obviously the site is not ‘done’ and more functionality and monetization (catchphrase alert!) is sure to come. The search function seems to work one day and then not the next, but that will get dialed in. It finally seems like MTV is in on the joke the internet is pulling.

This is change we can believe in.

Labels: Britney Spears, Isham, MTV, music video, NSync, video link, YouTube

Sign up for new cable/Netflix/phone/porno-website service for just $12 per month. Of course, that is only the first three months, after that the twelve bucks becomes $59 – the REAL price. Most adults are familiar with the bait-and-switch strategy and won’t fall for it. At least not more than once.

Hey, I was in Thailand, and it sure LOOKED like a pretty girl, how was I supposed to know ...

How does this apply to music videos?

All music video jobs go out to directors with the standard stuff: MP3 of the song, the lyrics, the brief from the brand manager and the shoot dates. The label also includes the budget number. These days, it is more and more likely the budget number is a lie.

Okay, maybe lie is too strong a word. How about “wrong?”

I see lots of jobs that come down the pike with $150k price tags. That number (as low as it once seemed) can, in 2008, get some very high-end directors to pay attention. Directors start formulating ideas, reference photos are pulled, exec producers open spreadsheets, but then ...

A buck and half becomes a buck and a quarter. The budget just lost some of its juiciness. The director and the rep and the prod co ponder the situation but decide to plow ahead even at the lower price. Everybody wants a job.

What happens if the $125k budget, then drops again? Is $100k enough? Not enough to do the same creative, so some of the reference photos are tossed out and spreadsheets get shorter.

What made the budget drop to two-thirds of the original number? What if it drops more? Maybe the label reviewed their finances and realized they genuinely had less than they thought (something I often encounter when I go out to buy my weekly Hypnotiq and Triscuits supply). It is possible that the label has been testing the song with radio stations and the music is not the hit they had hoped it was, so a smaller budget makes better sense. Perhaps the entire label’s financing structure with our Chinese overlords is being changed, so there are less yuan around for dancers and smoke machines. Maybe, but why do I believe none of that?

It seems clear that many labels are starting off budget numbers at a level that will attract lots of director attention, but they know the number won't end up there. This can get treatments in the door, and often from impressive names. I think that an artist reading (or having read to them) ideas from Applebaum or Kahn or Robinson makes them feel like they are well taken care of super-duper-stars, a label specialty. That the actual video will end up being directed by someone who watches a series of DVDs after all the quality directors drop out when the budget is cut to $12 and some Best Buy gift cards, let’s hope the artist and manager don’t notice that.

Is it shady for labels to float one budget number when they know the actual budget will be much, much less? Sure, but these are record labels we are talking about. They screwed over Bo Diddley! Some director with his reel on Wiredrive getting jerked around won’t even disturb their REM patterns for a moment. It should be no surprise that labels are trying anything they can, times are tough (or so I have heard).

Maybe these ‘Oops the budget just dropped again. We are SOOO sorry’ moments really are accidents. For a smart director they shouldn’t be a surprise.

Labels: baby director, insider, label, music video, philosophy

Over on Videostatic there is post about the Pharcyde (sort of) reunion video, but the hidden gem in there is the original treatment for the Pharcyde video “Drop.” You know, the one in the alley where everything goes backwards. You can watch it here.

Now check out the treatment. One page from Spike, complete with teenage text0r spelling (see, he WAS ahead of his time). The concept and the execution were brilliant, but I especially love the low-fi presentation of the idea.

First of all, check out the date at the bottom of the treatment. 1995. How long ago was that? More than just 13 years. The Hollywood address was still in the 213 area code. There is absolutely no email or web address on the Satellite letterhead. 13 years is longer than I thought.

It seems clear to me that Spike was presenting this technologically tricky idea in a simple conversational way. Helped to make it seem like no big deal that the band would have to learn the lyrics in reverse. The way the treatment is written also captures the swirly, improvisational and hallucinatory feel of the finished video (and most Pharcyde music). Were all these things purposeful? I’d have to see more Spike treatments of the era to judge, but who am I to doubt the master?

When I see all the effort that must go into winning a job now, this Pharcyde treatment seems quaint. I bet Spike, caught in his current Sendakian nightmare, sighs and thinks back on when everything was simpler.

On even moderate budgets today, many labels want reams of reference photos and video clips included with the director’s pitch. They want adjustments and tweaks and input from the manager and commissioner – all before the job is ever awarded. And modern directors are competing against a much, much larger field of directors that anyone had to back in the mid-90s. The amount of energy modern MV directors put in to even getting themselves in the running continues to grow, even as the financial and creative pay-offs shrink up.

One Page Treatment Writing Directors UNITE!!!



On a side note, someone took that classic video for ‘Drop’ and re-reversed it so we can see the way the action really played out on set. Watching the clip again, my thoughts are that this was a lot of well thought out gags (disguised as an effortless goof) and that the alley they were shooting in must have really smelled like urine.

Labels: insider, music video, on the set, Spike Jonze, videostatic

Ever wonder how to get started directing music videos? Check out the Music Video Training Center.

Drill down through the site. Watch the videos, read the success stories and get all the technical advice (many amateurs forget step #2) you can't find anywhere else.

If this doesn't give you the break you need, I don't know what will.

Drop me a comment and share what you have learned.

Labels: baby director, music video

I know that some music video sites have shifted into summer hours to allow more time out at the Hamptons – but not here on 30frames.

Note that several of the links below include cussing and/or boobies.

How times have changed – music videos used to be a powerful creative force that shaped what was seen as cool and hip. Those days, as you may have read, seem to be over. Now music videos are completely copying the new 800-pound gorilla – the Intranets. I am not talking about a passing reference to something found on-line – but the whole video being inside the construct of the series of tubes.

Weezers new clip for “Pork and Beans” is a collection of YouTube references set to the beat of their trademark nerd-pop. We get the feebly back-flipping ninja, the mentos-coke fountains and even the “leave Britney alone!” guy. What, no “SHOES!” ???

Here is an interview with the director, Matthew Cullen.

"Pork and Beans" is a funny video and perfect for the song. This is absolutely not a condemnation of the band, director or the video – this is a clever idea pulled off with a high level of low-fi execution. But it is part of the trend ...

Also check out the “Everyone Nose” video from NERD – a collaboration with the amateur-hipster-porn and ironic-t-shirt site lastnightsparty. The video pretty much copies the layout of the website as well as the content – glassy eyed 22-year olds looking to have slightly self-destructive fun in dark places. The song is about people lining up to do SOMETHING in the bathroom (and it apparently involves a nose) – so, in the website, this clip has found the perfect inspiration.

I’m sure there must be more of these videos out there – clips that echo the online zeitgeist. There has to be a LOL cats video, right? In 2000, the Chilipeppers aped the look of a video game for their “Californication” clip – getting what was hot in that moment on screen with the band. Music video have always done this …

But it is clear that on-line – with amateur comedy youtube clips and amateur photo sites like lastnightsparty – is what is hot. Who is busy pitching a clip based on stuff white people like, or hotchicks with douchebags? Better hurry.

Labels: hipsters, music video, NERD, Weezer, YouTube

When I was a kid I would (occasionally) shoplift a candy bar from the corner store in my neighborhood. It seemed logical at the time, after all these were adults with a great big store – they would hardly miss my 50-cents, right? Going past that place as a grown-up I marvel that it is still in business. So tiny, so few items for sale and how much effort must those people put in to be open so many hours every day. My perspective on that candy bar theft has clearly changed.

Young directors often see a big production company (and they all look big when you wanna get signed) as their golden ticket. The production company has a cool office, maybe there is even a vintage motorcycle parked in the lobby. To a wannabe Fincher – these people at the prod co must look like they have an endless supply of candy bars.

But … Record labels are truly massive enterprises, huge conglomerates with budgets for executive parking and office redecoration that dwarf even the wildest prod co office spending. No wonder they want to make more off the downloaded iPhone 2.0 songs.

So why would a major label screw with the relatively tiny production company? Because they can, and it saves them some cash. Same reason that an employer waits to hand out the checks to its employees until after the banks close on Friday to garner another night or two of interest before the payroll clears.

When a label hires a production company to make a video for them, the usual deal is that the first fifty percent of the budget gets paid to the prod co when the contract is signed – which seems to happen closer and closer to the actual shoot day, but that is another post. Then the next payment (usually 25%) is due when the first rough cut is delivered to the label. The final portion of the payment is owed to the production company when the final video is delivered along with all the elements (reels of film, video tapes, etc.) If the budget is really tiny the producers may get the entire amount (8 grand or whatever) up front. Makes sense, right?

That brings us to – record labels NOT paying production companies. Sure that first 50% shows up when they want to get the video made. The label knows that locations need to get booked and caterers (and deluxe hotel suites) must be paid for to service the “needs” of artists and label types alike. And the completed video isn’t in their hands, so - at least at this point - the label still needs the production company.

A lot of times that second payment also arrives as scheduled after the rough cut is viewed – after all the label still needs the producer and director to finish the damn video. But, when the video is done (and maybe even already on MTV or BET) – the last 25% seems to come just a bit slower.

The first line of label defense is to claim that they have yet to receive all the elements from the shoot, a provision specifically listed in the contract. In a hurried, complex production it is not surprising that the producers might have forgotten to send off one of the reels of film from the telecine house, or a DAT tape of audio recorded on set, a copy of the third different MTV re-edit or the final close-captioned version of the video that needed to be re-done because the original lyric sheet given by the label was wrong. What if the label acts like it didn’t get one of the legally required elements when it actually did, that would be shady, wouldn’t it?

There are lots of ways that the label can drag and drag their feet about paying that last bit of money. This is not just days, but often months of delays while the production company is getting invoices from vendors and crew members. This is obviously hard on the production company but what can they do?

The prod co can bitch and complain, but they don’t want to anger the label too much – because they are still waiting on the overages to come through. On a video shoot, if the production is going to go over the contracted budget – the label executive on the set can sign a form that they have authorized an overage of a certain amount of dollars to pay for a couple of hours of over-time or a dozen more extras (or bags of substances) as needed.

The problem with overages, at least from the prod co’s perspective, is that those payments are not due as part of the 50/25/25 contracted schedule. The label person (usually commissioner but sometimes another person) that signs doesn’t give over a stack of cash on set – this is just a promissory note, and more up-front spending by the production company.

The overage payments can take forever to come through from the label. I have seen checks arrive more than a year late. Some of this is to protect the label from fraud – they want to triple check to be sure they are not getting scammed by the video's producers (who would do such a thing?). I understand caution from the labels but …

Labels have claimed that the person who signed the overage sheet on set was not authorized to do so, or that the signature was forged. There can be confusion around this potentially pricey decision to spend more money – these overage calls are often made late at night after a long day of arduous shooting. Some prod cos have taken to having the signing of overages done while being video-taped – like a barely legal porn star showing her ID to the camera to be sure there will be no Traci Lords issues.

Adding to the likelihood of long-unpaid overages is the fact that labels are getting tighter and tighter with the budgets during the original planning stages, making it more and more likely that the trimmed and clipped budget won’t cover the actual cost of getting the video made. Everyone knows this going in, and assumes that overages will swoop in to save the financial day.

I have heard (rumor alert) of a label insisting on a certain budget number so the prod co rigged their budget for a seven hour day. All involved knew that the shoot would go more than 12 hours – but putting the ‘real’ cost in the budget would have made the number too high and the upper-level label folks would not have signed off. It seems that the ‘overage’ and ‘budget’ accounting is separate – not sure why it works this way. Doesn’t really make much sense. So a fake starting number is created, and then once the label is ‘pregnant’ with the video – they will have no choice but to sign the overage or face the prospect of a half-finished clip.

Overages are intended (in my amateur opinion) to cover events that happen on the set, so if you need an extra hour of overtime the director can get it and the fact that a couple grand is an ‘overage’ and thus gets paid slightly later is not a big issue. But as more and more of the genuine costs of the video get pushed into the overage category, carrying that debt is harder and harder for the prod cos. It has shifted from ‘putting one nice meal on my credit card’ to ‘paying my rent and utilities with my credit card.’ And this has helped kill off some production companies.

So why do production companies put up with this system? Why not insist on getting the money up front, or something, anything better than the current set-up? Because prod cos are scared and don’t want to lose even one job. Labels like the way the system is, so if one company raises a stink and wants all the cash up front, the label is more than happy to go to a different director at a more malleable prod co.

Many production companies are walking a fine line these days, and getting paid for that hamburger next Tuesday (even if we all know the payment won’t come until Saturday) seems better than selling no hamburgers at all.


Update: Over on the 'Ville, kalstark shares his own tale of woe and owe at the hands of his grateful clients. Check it out here.

Labels: controversy, death, insider, music video, on the set, prod co

This started out with me writing about how the only place that seems to play music videos (other than the YouToogle) these days is museums.

Bjork took her claymation-y “Where The Wilds Things” are Choose Your Own Yak-venture to NY’s Natural History Museum. This Jakob Trollback guy spoke at the TED conference and explained what music videos really SHOULD be (and we all know that this is MY gig). His talk is kind of boring and the video is even less fun than that – getting into how typical video fare is ‘reactive’ and has too much ego from the director. Well, directors certainly do have some egos on them, but Mr. Trollback getting golf-applause from a crowd averaging seventeen different minors and majors in various un-employable liberal arts fields for talking about excessive ego seems kind of the pot calling the kettle ‘ashy.’

The videos that succeed in the museum market all have a certain vibe, and so do the clips getting the most exposure at the other end of the artistic spectrum. The clips that get the most eyes on YouToogle seem to be the cheapest and most “guerilla” in style. Both musical and visual. I would assume that the immediacy of low-budget rap and rock stuff latches on to YouTube eyes and ears, maybe because it already looks like the kind of amateur stuff kids are used to watching online.

The current world of video exposure shines a light on the highest brow stuff in museums and the lowest brow with hos being supermanned and sodas on the side via the intranets. Labels are still making videos that live in that middle ground – but they seem to receive less and less exposure all the time.

Music television, whether MTV, BET, Fuse or any of their variants, is that middle ground. With fewer and fewer on-air slots available as music television airs less clips every month – that territory becomes even more valuable. Even if the edges of the music world (both museums/galleries and the Net) have more wide open space, that middle ground is still worth fighting over.

Labels: Bjork, Middle Earth, MTV, music video, YouTube

Sorry for the lack of posts – sometimes I feel like I have run out of things to say, so I just go back to the classics.

The music video industry is in an odd place these days, where it is neither fish nor fowl. Budgets have dropped (see, I told you this was a classic) but the expectations have not changed. And I don’t mean just the expectations of what will end up on screen, I mean all the other stuff as well.

A label brief came in for a female pop/R&B artist. She is a star, but not a mega-star. The label is going to spend $140,000 on the video – and that included all of the typical budget items like insurance, travel, closed captioning for the final video and glam for the artist. The artist lives in Atlanta and the artist’s glam squad types reside in New York. None of that sounds crazy but if you look a little deeper – that 140k starts looking pretty tiny.

Someone is going to have to travel. That is money right there – and the director probably lives in LA (since most of them do). We will get into travel costs in a second, but since we have a triangle – glam in NY, artist in ATL, director in LA – there is no real way to avoid traveling somebody and putting them up in pricey hotels.

Shooting in Atlanta is okay – not great but okay. The crews are decently priced but not known for working particularly fast or efficiently. Locations in the ATL are reasonably priced, but limited in the kind of look you can get. New York has great crews and great locations – but all that stuff is really pricey. New York shoots are always hard and end up costing more than you would think because of unions, rules, restrictive permitting process and so on. LA is usually the best option for shooting – but in this case it also requires the most travel.

Where to shoot is a foundation decision, and it would be a lot simpler if the production could get glam people in LA rather than the artist’s preferred NYC crew. Trust me, there are hair, wardrobe and make-up types aplenty in Los Angeles.

Let’s dive into the hard costs that the production company has to look at when they are budgeting this job, and lets assume the shoot ends up happening in Los Angeles. And all of this number crunching goes hand-in-hand with the creative process – the idea for the video needs to be a good one AND it has to be affordable. But for now, let’s stick with the money. Budgets are not my area of expertise, but here are some educated guesstimates on “what it cost.”

Budget – 140k

Production fees – 37k
Artist travel – 4k
Glam squad fees – 15k
Glam travel – 5k
DP – 5k
Film, processing, telecine and edit – 15k
Camera and lights – 5k
Crew (including their taxes, insurance and food) – 25k
Close captioning and other fixed costs like dupes – 2k
The total so far – 113k

That leaves 27k for the creative good stuff like -

Location fees and permits
Art department
Dancers, extras, etc.




Okay, lets go through those numbers again with a bit more detail

Production fees – 37k
The typical breakdown is 10% for the director, 3-5% to the director’s rep, 5% to the line producer and 10% to the production company to pay the exec producer, head of production phone bills and so on. The 37k assumes that these costs will equal 27% of the total budget – a relatively conservative estimate.

One might think – Why do all these people have to make so much money? The director has been writing on a dozen different ideas for many artists – none of which have turned into a job, except maybe this one. The director certainly deserves to get paid – they may not work again for a while and Chris Brown is no longer talking their calls. The exec producer at the production company has been working with this director for years. He has been trying to get him/her a good job, but they haven’t worked in a couple months. These fees are covering all that work. Ditto for the rep who has been pimping the director all over town – the rep surely has earned her (and it probably is a her – sorry Tommy) money.

Artist travel – 4k

This is a conservative estimate. The artist is going to fly first class and stay in a top notch hotel in LA. If the label/manager doesn’t talk them out of bringing cousins and hangers on, it could get much, much worse. This also includes town cars and the like, but not mini-bar charges.

Glam squad fees – 15k

Not exorbitant at all for high end types – and we are assuming they are, other wise Miss Diva ain’t flying them in from NYC. Three departments – hair, make-up and wardrobe with one lead and one assistant each. Five grand per is not a wildly huge amount.

Glam travel – 5k

See artist travel above. Let’s hope we can keep the hair expert from finding out the artist is at L’Hermitage while the glam people are slumming at the Sofitel.

DP – 5k

This might be a bit high, but remember the label and manager are going to want super high-end beauty for this clip. No way the label signs off on the director’s buddy from film school as the DP so they can save some cash. The label has a list of DPs they approve of and good luck getting them to order something not on the menu.

Film, processing, telecine and edit – 15k

I am not sure of these numbers, but they are not very negotiable either. This is the kind of beauty-oriented job that the label is definitely going to want 35mm film and not digital video, no matter how much “Video Nerd Monthly” claims that film is dead. No one is going to shoot with a high end DP and then go cheap on the telecine/colorist. The big variable in here is how much of the glam/beauty “clean up” work they want done. That is on top of the expensive make-up, DP and telecine beauty work.

Camera and lights – 5k

Once again, not sure of these numbers – but I do know it would be MUCH higher if the creative calls for things like motion control, techno-cranes, steadi-cam or other technological goodies for the camera department.

Close captioning and other fixed costs like dupes – 2k

Not much to add here.

Crew (including their taxes, insurance and food) – 25k

This number could slide and move a LOT – depending on overtime and other factors. A “big” set would require more lights (see above) and tons of people to hang them. A roof-top shoot would tire out everyone by forcing the crew to lug stuff up and down the stairs. Overtime is the bogeyman here – wasted time could turn bad really quick.

The total so far – 113k

Stuff NOT included above –

• Any location at all.
• Any props, sets or decorations.
• Production / talent / wardrobe trailers.
• Glossy car for artist to emerge from in super-duper slow motion
• Dancers
• Rehearsal days or choreographer days for dancers
• Gifts or “extras” for the artist, manager, label types
• Posh video village set-up for label types to sit in and complain about where all the money is going.

I’m sure that many of you are looking at these numbers and shaking your heads at the insanity of the “old model” for music videos. The dollar amounts can get pretty crazy, sort of like what the Pentagon pays for a toilet seat and all that.

This kind of fantasy-meets-reality industry hijinks must happen all the time in videos with $8k budgets as well, I just don't know much about that world. Up-and-coming directors understandably salivate over the prospect of six-figure budgets, but probably don't realize the nonsense that comes with that high octane world. Money solves some production problems, but it seems that the expectations grow way faster (and shrink slower) than the budgets do.

Even as the market has changed, there are many, many jobs that the label wants treated in this “old way" with extras and luxuries all around. Why does the artist have to have those particular make-up people? Why not take a chance on a younger DP with an up and coming reel? Why not make the label commissioner fly coach and stay at the (perfectly reasonable) Farmer’s Daughter? Good questions, but anyone who knows the label biz – knows they are questions with no answers.

There are plenty of directors that could make a whole handful videos for this budget, but their reels don’t have enough of the high-end glamorous beauty work to earn them this particular job. Maybe there is someone who could do this job by using a different technique (smaller crew, shoot on video, etc.) but that kind of “outside the box” thinking probably won’t fly on this VERY inside the box kind of job.

Remember, this is not a video for an indie band, or someone with an edge – this is for an old school kind of artist (even if the singer involved is only 23) so the old school approach is in full effect. When the label wants beauty and more beauty for their artist (and that is probably the right choice here).

This kind of glamorous video (for someone like Mary J Blige) was made in 1998, and they probably spent $600k on it. Now that is an even crazier amount of money, but at least they could afford to hit the target they were aiming at. Back then, at least the reality matched the expectation. Now the labels hand directors a squirt gun and an Amtrak pass and expect them to come back with grizzly bear (and get upset if the director asks for water for the squirt gun).

Is the music video world a land of lean and mean production budgets with people pulling favors to get things done on a tight financial leash – or is it a world of rented Escalades, and two bedroom suites? The only wrong answer is to choose both.

Labels: death, insider, music video, on the set, philosophy, prod co

There is this dim-bulb chick from a dopey reality show who has recently made a “music video.” The clip is not very good, but if you see how they made the thing – this is no kind of surprise. The song is goofy and the video is worse – even the fact that the video’s star is a blonde in a skimpy swimsuit showing off the goods in a way that seems like it is aimed at getting clicks 9and other one-handed activity) on dailymotion rather than airplay on music television.

My point in bringing this up is not to pile on the already well-mocked artist/song/video. There are plenty of other people doing that. The reason I mention this clip is because I have come to see the response to this video as a good thing. Not because people are finally rejecting reality TV trash (ha, like that is gonna happen) – but because …

Everyone seems to realize this is NOT a real music video. I was actually surprised that the general public could tell this waste of pixels apart from a genuine video. Pleasantly surprised, indeed.

It makes me happy that people can discern a real music video shoot (like Timbaland – complete with professionals shouting in funny accents) apart from this other thing. Though one could speculate about who's body is more artificial - Timbo or Heidi.



On a side note, there is a five part interview series with Spike Jonze, Kanye and special guest Hype over on vbs. A cool bit of insight into the thought process of a star who really cares about his videos. Thanks to najork for posting on antville.

Labels: Heidi Montag, media, music video, Spike Jonze, Timbaland, trainwreck, video link, viral video, YouTube

A high-school reunion usually prompts people to try and get themselves together – or at least act like it. Gym memberships, Rogaine and spray-on tans often mark the lead up to the big event – but they can’t quite make us look as good as we did back then.

“Thriller” is like the one person coming back for the get-together at the Double Tree that everyone remembers clearly. In fact he has been the talk of the town the whole time – both for the wild successes and the, umm, rumors of other stuff. Unfortunately, Thriller looks so different that some people might not even recognize all the new facial features.

The LA Times goes over the top-selling record of all-time, track by track and lets us know that “Thriller” was pretty darn good. I am particularly partial to “Billie Jean” – the beat is a towering monument to the genius of Quincy. When it comes to the title track, the video comes up:

"Thriller": If ever a video killed the radio star, "Thriller" was it. The song was adequately groovy -- funked-out beat, lyrics seemingly lifted from some little kid's "scary storybook" -- but the video was legendary: bearing a price tag of $800,000, the 14-minute mini-film was the most expensive video of its time. Back then it was over the top; to today's viewer, jaded by bloated-budget videos, it still looks epic -- and deliciously campier than ever. - LAT

Is anyone feeling “jaded by bloated-budget videos”? Maybe if newspaper types weren’t so busy getting laid-off (and writing about same), they might have noticed that 25 years is a long ass time.

Also, posting about real Thriller, obligates me to also mention, umm, you know.

Labels: Indian Thriller, media, music video, un-Indian Thriller, videostatic

On top of all the problems experienced by working production professionals – death of music industry, typical January blahs, some kind of strike – we have also been visited by another bit of bad news. What, no rain of frogs?!?

Axiom, one of the major production pay-roll companies went under – taking many millions of dollars with it. My favorite definition for Axiom is “A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument.” Which could be read as “so true it needs no back-up” or “don’t ask for proof, just trust us.”

Payroll companies handle the taxes and payments for most productions, since there are so many details and loop-holes in tax laws and with-holdings. Axiom (and associated companies) going under does not just effect those in music videos and production but lots of other places as well. Some folks have lost their health insurance that they assumed had been paid for by the company, others are stuck with no money at all for work they did. The beleaguered prod cos are now stuck finding more money to pay the people they owe, since the first time they “paid,” Axiom swallowed up the cash and trucked it away to Enron-ville. Over on "Totally Unauthorized" there is a sharp dissection of what this will mean to production types.

The more “stable and safe” companies – from Axiom to formerly big-balling production houses - go under, the more it is clear that there are no guarantees in music video. That certainly isn’t news, but it is easy to forget that nothing is for sure, especially with the state the industry is in. It never was guaranteed, but shiny office buildings and cool, custom printed business cards can sure cover up the cracks in the foundation.

Young directors looking to get more work are now faced with the realization that “making it” and signing at a hip prod co means nothing if the company goes under in a week or two. There are fewer and fewer rules all the time, which leaves lots of room for new ideas and new people. Especially if the old people are bankrupt or indicted.


Bit of side business. On the ‘Ville there was a post about Janet’s new video and people sharing their thoughts. Then the thread goes sideways with the appearance of an incredibly obvious fake “Dale Resteghini” posting ludicrous stuff. (Hint, most people can spell their own name.) Trust me, Senor Rage is too busy making his next ten videos to post on Antville. Some easily convinced types should be careful when they reply to emails about imprisoned princes in Nigeria. The thread is a fun read, never-the-less and remember that “gullible” is not in the dictionary.

Labels: death, music video, prod co