30frames

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

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

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

At the LA Auto Show, the prominent color this year was green. Hybrids, Variable Displacement, Fuel Cells and all things gas-saving were in the spotlight. Even the Porsche SUV, the Cayenne, had a partially electric version on display (though still a plan rather than a buy-able product). Cadillac displayed a hybrid Escalade that had chrome “Hybrid” badges big enough to compete with the 22-inch rims. It seems like the bigger and more guzzle-riffic the vehicle, the harder the manufacturer was trying to convince us they had the interests of the planet in mind. The car companies even hired hot chicks with a natural make-up and natural chests to hand out brochures – a sign of the depth of their commitment to the new, green way of the world.

Everyone knows that hybrids are not the answer. Hybrids are the methadone to the problem, They are a good step, and much better for our health that the hard stuff, but as long as we love that rush/horsepower – we are still gonna be watching movies about sad penguins on shrinking ice and news reports about “national interests” in distant places where lots of dinosaurs and plants died millions of years ago.

So the car companies were posing like they had it all figured out. They licensed some power-train technology from Toyota, slapped it in their three-ton pick-ups and the problem is solved. Right?!?

The record industry in a similar state. Radiohead and digital downloads make news. The industry giants are touting new ways of doing business and acting like they have solved their problems, but they have not. In late 2007, anyone with a couple of hundred million dollars could place the “Buy It Now” bid for Warner Bros Records on Ebay and receive free-shipping on their very own music conglomerate. The problem is, anyone smart enough to have that kind of money is also smart enough to realize they are better off buying Enron stock.

There are lots of smart people in the music business, and they are doing the best they can but there are no quick fixes. There are smart people at GM, too – and right now the best they have is green stickers to put on the back of the enormous SUVs that were uber-profitable for them just three years ago.

One thing big companies do really well – is act like everything is okay. What else can they do? So right now, the colorful lights make the top of the Capitol Records Building look like a Christmas tree, just like when Sinatra was moving units. What else are they gonna do? Not put up the lights?

Hybrids or no hybrids, Detroit (and Tokyo, and Stuttgart) have solutions to find if they wanna still be having the LA Auto Show in 20 years.

If the Capitol Records Building gets bought up by the Chinese government (and painted with lead paint, of course), they can still hang the Christmas lights every December. It will be just as pretty and only the old timers will be grumbling that it doesn’t mean what it used to. Most people don’t give a shit what the old-timers grumble about.

The music industry needs to move past their current stage of acting like it is all good while they rearrange the deck chairs when no one is looking. A “hybrid” sticker on the CDs that don’t really sell isn’t fooling anyone. Right now, we are still at the stage where Sony/BMG having a myspace page or Universal being big on YouToogle comes off like a solution. Please submit all suggestions to the Capitol Building, ASAP.

Labels: death, insider, music video, selling, YouTube

Thanks to kureman over on antville for posting this clip.

Here is about thirty minutes of behind the scenes footage on the making of Mark Romanek’s iconic 1994 video for Nine Inch Nail’s “Closer.” The featurette is broken into three separate sections and is overall relatively interesting.

Romanek was always a great MV director who I wished worked more and this is a decent glimpse inside the mind of a super-talented guy.

What I found to be even more valuable, especially to MV directors working today, is the accompanying clip of the finished video for “Closer” with commentary from Trent Reznor. Not that many bands/artists are at all likeReznor, but it is instructive to hear what parts of the process (and Romanek’s skills) he was drawn to.

• Reznor was impressed with Romanek’s knowledge of film and visual references. Romanek does talk about Man Ray and JP Witkin – being sure to credit them with the ways they inspired the look of "Closer". It is clear Romanek knows and respects the history of this kind of style which adds importance to …

• Romanek made Reznor feel like the video would address what he wanted and not just be “funding [the director’s] art project.” I have written about this before, but so many young director’s don’t know how to create a concept they want to shoot and still include (or at least make the artist/label FEEL like they are including) what the artist/label wants.

• The (past) power of MTV. Reznor comments on how "Closer," his first big video, got played on MTV and a single video spin was worth more that a million plays on college radio. That was why the label forked over the big budget for the three or four day shoot – a hit video was worth that much.

Romanek is a major talent, and that often comes with elements of self-indulgence – like using an antique hand-cranked silent movie camera that often broke down, rather than shooting with modern equipment and making the final film “look” old. Also, the set with built-in practical lighting and skylights (so no “movie lights” on the set) looks great in the behind the scenes footage, and must have cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in art department. So is that self-indulgence or attention to detail?

Watch "Closer" with artist commentary here.

Labels: insider, MTV, music video, NIN, Trent Reznor, YouTube

Businesses come and go. They are born and then they fold. The “Conestoga wagon construction and repair industry” fell by the way-side. At some point, a sweaty man hauled the last block of ice up a flight of stairs to chill the last real “ice box” – perhaps someone was sad about that. Certainly the “airbrushing things on the side of Dodge vans” industry has seen better days. Perhaps those jobs were replaced by “mall kiosk that sells ugly, off-brand face-plates for cell phones” – that seems a LOT like the van painting to me, just with less Pink Floyd marching hammers.

Birth and death – blah, blah. Well, the record store is certainly a lot closer to death than birth. Tower Records has closed its doors – a chain store, but one that “Championship Vinyl” types could at least acknowledge as “real.” Now that Tower is gone, the greater Los Angeles area (when not being evacuated due to brush fires) is home to a single shining beacon of music sales-dom – Amoeba Records.

Amoeba is a massive place filled with new and used CDs and records. The fact that the DVD section grows by the month shouldn’t worry you, move along, nothing to see here. Amoeba is a fun place to go and kill an hour or seven. There are seemingly endless racks of music and shopping here takes on a weird, adrenaline-fueled communal vibe. Many people comment along the lines of “Amoeba is wonderful, but it is almost a sensory overload.”

Amoeba is a great place and I am glad that it exists. But it almost isn’t a record store – it is more like an amusement park. And not a flashing lights and over-priced lattes kind of amusement park – but a hardcore amusement park for people that are really, really into music. A Civil War re-enactors amusement park, if you will.

A casual music fan going in there to find the latest Timberlake CD is probably going to end up running for the door as fast as they can find their way back out. Amoeba is NOT for the faint of heart. There are more racks of African music at the Hollywood Amoeba than there is racks of all CDs just down the street at Best Buy.

Overall, this is not a good sign. Normal record stores went under, but this mighty mutant of excess survives and even prospers because there are people who want this kind of intense experience. Just not enough people to keep this experience going in normal sized towns and cities. Not every town can support a massive amusement park like Disneyland. They tried to put a Planet Hollywood in every town – and that didn’t work out too well. The record store has become a tourist attraction, a place of worship, an oddity.

Music fans (usually the kind that read blogs like this one) go into Amoeba when they are visiting LA and say “Why isn’t there a place like this in MY town?” And the answer is – because you wouldn’t go to it, at least not enough to keep it open. The Amoeba experience doesn’t work on a smaller scale – it needs the swirling hyper-activity that comes from 800 people, all clickety clacking through the “Used Ska” section at the same time. Amoeba is a destination, not a place to complete an errand to pick up some music you like. Few cities have the population to support a store like Amoeba, and one of the reasons it works even in LA, is because it is a tourist destination – so the churning masses of visitors keep the doors open.

Amoeba is the exception that proves the rule – the rule that brick and mortar record retailing is going away. Like Madonna is the exception that proves how the new Live Nation plan won’t work for a young band.

Amoeba isn’t going anywhere. iTunes cannot kill something like this. Amoeba will still be doing brisk business when people are wandering through in the year 2028 to buy Aztec Camera and that “Good Charlotte: 20 years of Hits” compilation. Assuming there is still anything physical to sell. Maybe we can just line up in Amoeba to get the tunes injected into our brains.

Labels: death, insider, music video, philosophy, video link, YouTube

The business side of the music industry has been getting heavy coverage the past few days. From Britney’s video adventures with the vertical brass cylinder, to Radiohead’s groundbreaking (groundbreaking, I say!) new strategy and Madonna’s new school all-in-one deal with Live Nation. There has been plenty of hype, but …

The Britney thing? Next.

Radiohead and Madonna are intriguing because these are about new ways of music getting distributed and money being made off the music, tours and celebrity fragrances. The self produced digital-only record is definitely the direction of DIY music careers and I also think that (at least on some level) Madonna and Live Nation (LN) represent the way that “labels” will look in the future.

I have no idea how these experiments are going to work and remember that no one else does either. No matter how many orders Radiohead got the first day or how sure someone is that Madonna took LN to the cleaners – these are massive, complicated deals that cannot be classified as successes or failures for years to come. What they are, for now, is a new direction – and that is exciting.

I am always one to be skeptical of hype, a side effect of being in the hype business. Both Radiohead and LN employed the power of the press release to perfection these last weeks. They got massive coverage for their new ventures, with very little outlay for newspaper or TV ads. Free press is great and there has been lots of it over the past few weeks.

That being said, we all need to take a chill pill. Remember the iPhone launch? That was madness. Surely the world was about to end. My favorite story from then was the Mayor of Philly getting caught camping out on line (what, no assistant?!?) to get a glorious world-changing cellular thing-a-ma-jig. Well, time has passed and many people have an iPhone, more don’t – the world continues to spin. The cell phone marketplace is different, but no one in that industry thinks it is all sorted out yet. That is where we are with the “game changing” Radiohead and Madonna deals, it is still very early.

These new ideas are intriguing but you know who they work for? Established megastars. Say again – established acts with massive pre-existing fame.

The Madonna deal is all about concerts and other merchandise – so that kind of thing could work great for Dave Matthews or the Eagles – not so much for Talib Kweli or Kelly Clarkson. The Radiohead model of self releasing (heh, heh – self releasing) on-line might work for Linkin Park, but probably not for a new act.

These strategies are a refreshing change from the tired label group-think, but they are (at least so far) strange new directions that don’t really apply to most of the music industry. Selling your own record on your website happens all the time already (though the “name your own price” part is kinda new) and by and large no one cares.

All kinds of acts you have never heard of are already doing things very similar to what Radiohead is trying with this. Thousands of bands sell their music for nearly nothing on-line 24/7 – so why is it a big story now? Not because the strategy is so new, but because a very, very famous band is doing it. This is actually not a story about a “bold new direction” for the record industry, it is a story about a beloved band and their music that everyone is eager to hear.

The Madonna signing with LN is similar – not all that new. The deal that 19 Management strikes with the American Idol finalists is similar (I believe) regarding the sharing of various income streams, though the dollar values are much, much lower for Ruben Studdard and Fantasia than they are for Madonna.

Radiohead and Madonna are doing something new-ish – but what happens with their experiments is largely meaningless for the real future of the record industry. Maybe if Madonna cleans up then John Mellencamp and Mary J Blige may want/get similar arrangements – but what happens when all the famous musicians are gone?

U2 and Usher could find audiences releasing their own “digital only” recordings – but even if it works perfectly, what does that mean to a new band no one has heard of?

Everyone that can truly benefit from these deals (at least in a way I can imagine in the present day marketplace) is already super-ultra-mega-famous. Only the most established and renowned artists need apply.

Telling a new band or a newbie singer that self-releasing and all-in-one manage-labels are the future – is like telling a poor family struggling on food stamps that they need to make money – by purchasing an apartment building. Buying a nice six-unit building IS a good investment – but you need to already have a big bundle of cash to even make it into that game. Your friend’s band who plays down at the corner bar/roller-rink/basement is probably struggling to afford a twelver of beer. The idea of owning rental properties as a “solution” is pure fantasy land for them.

These “new strategies” are great things to try, especially if you are already wealthy from the old strategies of the traditional record label. Without the backing of Capitol, can Radiohead get every major newspaper to write about their website? People are eager to hear Radiohead’s new music because Thom Yorke is very talented AND because their “old” label invested lots and lots of money to make that talent into fame. Capitol got rich too, far richer that the band ever did off Yorke’s songs – but ask Radiohead if they want to start again at zero without major label support.

Like people that remember V-J Day, the artists that were made super-stars by the old label powers will die out and slip into unimportance. Can these new business models make stars, or just profit off and enrich existing ones?

What happens when all the famous musicians are gone?

Labels: Britney Spears, celebrity, death, insider, label, Madonna, music video, Radiohead, u2

Gotta love Busta Rhymes getting down like a Senator. No, not in a "wide stance" kind of way but in a "Intranets is a series of tubes" kind of way.

Check out the onsmash clip of Bussa Buss decrying the good ol' days (hey, that's my gig) and remembering the time when he spent millions on recording before "the computer caused that fuck up." Busta is, as always, hilarious and gives voice to the rarely heard "wealthy celebrity" demographic. Plus he is right about them ringtones!

Absorb the knowledge and be prepared for NSFW language.

Labels: Busta Rhymes, celebrity, insider, music video, video link, viral video, YouTube

Hey, did you hear? There is a new Britney Spears video. It hasn’t been getting much press (well that and the Radiohead pick-a-price adventure) – so I thought I would let you know about it.

I do not want to get into piling onto Britney’s personal life or pointing out all the substandard elements of the clip. Anyone with eyes can see that. This is an actually decent pop song with a flat and effortless music video. Not much more needs to be said about the clip itself.

How and why this particular video got made does interest me, though. The director is listed as Jake Sarfaty. Some have said this is an Alan Smithee name for Jake Nava, a director who has worked with Britney before with some success.

The director of “Gimme More” is not the well known director of highly professional clips for Beyonce and Mariah. Jake Sarfaty is a real guy, a gaffer/grip with a reasonable amount of below-the-line credits on a variety of productions. So how does this guy end up directing a video for one the most (in)famous artists around? I certainly don’t know for sure – but my guess is that no one else would do it.

There had been talk for months and months about Britney making her OWN video. Jive didn’t want to pay (they thought the market wasn't ready for a "comeback") and yet Britney wanted to get out there right away and answer her critics. Is answering one's critics ever a good idea? How about answering the critics with a pole dance? That'll do the trick.

So this other, never produced, self-made Britney video was probably a different song, but I recall the story being that she wanted to shoot a clip where she was crucified on a cross made out of tabloids. Brilliant! This rumored video was supposed to get shot at Britney's own house and she reached out to some real directors – who came back with budgets and the like but it never took off. The story was that Britney was paying with her own money, so perhaps a professional was gonna cost too much or maybe someone talked sense into her and she decided to wait a bit on her “comeback.”

But finally, Britney gets the video she has been wanting to make - over the protestations of Jive it seems. There are soooo many mistakes with "Gimme More." Britney clearly needs some time off, both personally and in the marketplace. I don’t think people are ready to see her as an artist again, right now. She is still the “train wreck” in most people’s eyes and we are not ready to hear what she has to say musically. We are still more interested in whether or not she wears shoes into public restroom or gets her kids taken away by Sheriff’s Deputies. This is too soon, but it seems like Britney is not getting the best advice these days, or at least not listening to it.

Spending one’s own money is almost always a mistake. Anyone that casually watches Entourage must know this. It makes sense that Britney wouldn’t want to spend too much of her own money on a music video, so that is how a gaffer with zero directing credits gets the job.

The whole thing comes across so half-assed it is actually more like quarter-assed. It seems thrown together and almost completely unplanned. The song ain’t bad, but this isn’t gonna spark any kind of lasting comeback - despite the current surge of popularity on iTunes. Videostatic posits that we are watching for all the wrong reasons – and I have to agree.

The video for "Gimme More" doesn’t come across like a career move, but rather a desperate grab at keeping the mercurial flame of fame alive. All I can say is that Britney’s gonna need to find some more flammable stuff to throw in to keep it smoldering, because our attention is gonna burn through this balsa-wood thin distraction in way less than fifteen minutes.

Watch "Gimme More" on mtv.com.

Labels: Beyonce, Britney Spears, insider, mariah carey, MTV, music video, trainwreck, TRL

This is the first in a series of anonymous email interviews with music video industry insiders. Up first is a major player at a very major music video production company.

What kind of things does an executive producer do on a daily basis?
I’m not sure how it works at other, bigger companies, but at my company the executive producers are involved in every aspect of the music video process. My impression of EP’s at other companies is based on my previous life on the other side of the equation and it seems that they are less involved, less hands on and wear fewer hats than me and my co-workers.

So with that said, my duties are as follows:

One – Sales. Ultimately I’m a salesman. I could be selling cars, but instead I am selling directors. Selling starts like Glengarry Glen Ross – with cold calling. This is my least favorite part of the job. I feel like a telemarketer, especially when clients don’t take my calls and don’t reply to my emails.

Luckily, we represent directors who are in demand, so to a certain extent the work comes to us. A client will send us a track and it becomes my job to ask the client a bunch of questions – are they really interested in our director directors they have solicited? Who else is writing? When does it shoot? What is the budget? Will they spend more for our A-list director, and can we have our B-list director write since the budget is too low for our A-list director and/or our A-list director isn’t available. Once I get all that information, we are on to step two…

Two – Interfacing with the director. This is still sales because all directors are picky and I’ve got to sell them on why writing on a no-budget, mediocre rock track with a nightmare client is a good idea. Or it’s the pep talk with a junior director about why they should write on the new Gnarls Barkley track even though they have a better chance of winning the lottery than getting the job.

With our younger directors, we’re very hands on with their treatment writing. Our A-list directors have earned the right to have us just spell check their work and forward it on to the clients. With our babies it is much more involved. This is the part of the job I like the most. It is occasionally the most pure moment in the process of making a video. It’s about ideas – it’s about finding references, refining the pitch and making the writing clear and concise. It is also about protecting directors from themselves and their tendency to over-promise specific things in their treatments. Why write “massive sea of fans” or massive club scene” when you only have $50k?

Three – Budget. Once the treatment is in and the label or artist says that they like it, the next step (unless there is a re-write) is budgeting. We prefer to have producers work on budgets so that there is some accountability (even though we end up hacking away at most bids anyway). We like to pretend we’re not handing the producer a pile of shit.

Four – Overseeing production. Besides spending time on set, we try to stay involved in the day-to-day production. At the very least, we’re in the loop on most decisions that are being made on a job. At the most, we are stepping in to help produce jobs because the producer is semi-retarded and has let things get completely out of hand.

All this stuff is happening simultaneously so when we’re busy, we end up doing a bad job at all of it.

Talk a bit about the way MV world has changed in the last few years.
The business has just gotten harder and harder. Budget reduction is only one part of it. Labels are in turmoil, so there is a level of stupidity and chaos that is mind-boggling. People are afraid to make decisions, afraid to do anything new and creative. Everything ends up being really last minute, and the people we are dealing with as commissioners have less and less power. As far as I am concerned there is only one really good commissioner left in the business. She’s good because she has real power, she can make real decisions and she’s able to manage people’s expectations because she understands production.

Do you think that some of the "blame" for the current state of the MV industry belongs to MV production companies for their behavior during the "glory days"?
No. When the entire industry is badly behaved, you can’t blame one part of it. The only thing I would say is that production companies are their own worst enemies. Unlike the commercial world (although, this seems to be changing as well), MV production companies have never banded together in a positive way to make a stand with their client base. It’s no coincidence that the commercial standard is to have three directors compete for any given job while in videos it’s not uncommon three of our directors write on a given track. [That is just at one company,] so do the math, it’s possible that 10-20 directors are writing for certain tracks. That is insane and foolish.

What is the craziest thing you have ever seen (heard about ?) a director do on the set?
I wasn’t around for the crazy years. Coke and booze on set is old school. I don’t see anything wrong with calling out Wayne Isham since he stood up at this year’s MVPA Awards and did a shot [of liquor] as the finale of hiss speech. He’s famous for his hard partying. It’s why certain bands still want to work with him.

The worst I have personally dealt with is yelling. “So and So is the stupidest fucking idiot I’ve ever met!” Most of our directors are really nice and relatively normal.

What is the one thing that labels do (pay late, string directors along, screw with edits, etc.) that annoys you the most?
Making everything last minute. Especially with the budgets we’re now dealing with, working with really last minute situations is a nightmare. With the down-grade in quality of commissioners, there has been a huge drop in the condition in which jobs are done. Because the commissioners have no power, they’re afraid to tell their bosses, who really know nothing, that they need to push the dates of their shoot if they want a good video.


What is the most over budget one of your jobs has ever been? The most under?
$50k over is the worst. I have heard stories from the old days of being $200k under budget, that just isn’t possible any more.

Do you think about the long-term of a director's career much, or does that take care of itself if you get them doing good work on a day-to-day basis?
Our company’s philosophy (that I don’t really agree with all the time) is that work begets work and that directors shouldn’t be picky. We want directors who want to work, we’re not interested in developing “artists”.

What is the most extravagant "gift" you (or your company) ever got for an artist/manager/exec?
Huge amounts of weed. $15k to a manager who approached us and guaranteed a single bid for his huge artist. That’s only happened once or twice. I’ve heard stories about companies that have a more serious approach to the kick-back game. That’s never really been our thing, but good clients do get nice meals and nice Christmas presents.

Ever had a gun pointed at you (music video related only)?
I was in Miami recently and walked past the artist’s car, when I peered inside in the open door and saw a hot groupie polishing a Glock.

What director do you wish you had gotten to work with? What director are you glad you have avoided?
I know it is a cliché but I would have liked to work with Michel Gondry. I’ve heard he’s a nightmare but I’d like to have seen how his mind works. I have not been able to avoid the worst.


That was great! After the Glock polishing, my favorite part was the coining of the term “a more serious approach to the kick-back game.”

Labels: baby director, Cone of Silence, He Who Is Always Named, insider, Isham, music video, on the set, prod co

In casino parlance, a Whale is the kind of big time gambler that gets all the comps and upgrades – because despite the effort and expense, the high-rolling whale ends up pumping major cash into the house’s pockets. In the world of music videos, the whale is just as profitable and the opposite of the mirage – but the whale is rare and getting rarer.

As a side note, did anyone else who saw "Ocean’s 13" think that Pacino’s tremendously ugly casino skyscraper looks like the strange twisting obelisk from the cover of Led Zeppelin’s “Presence” album? Probably just a flashback from Journey being the last sound ever heard on the Sopranos. Anyway …

Whales are the kind of jobs that can really make the year for a prod co. Whales are ultra-high profit jobs because the paying party is never a regular record label. The entity cutting the checks could be – a movie studio, a video game or dot.com firm, a plutocratic family member, or even a coffee company named after a character in a whaling book. (Hmm.)

What all the whales have in common is that they are NOT used to commissioning videos. They don’t know the territory and they are easy pickings for a smart music video production company looking to, um, maximize profits. In this situation the prod co and director can come up with a grand concept (which the Whale will love since Whales are always looking to make a splash) and the music video pros have the advantage in that the people commissioning the job have no freaking idea what stuff is supposed to cost.

Labels are usually pretty good at knowing how much it costs to make a video and they have all kinds of mechanisms in place to monitor the price of the videos they are commissioning because they do it all the time. A Whale doesn’t know that a camera package should rent for less that $50k per day – how would they? The Whale has been off in their own world, very busy making scads of money in a field they understand completely. But now they are up the creek.

Whales are marked by having an excess of cash, a lack of experience and (this is key) a burning need to make a very special video for this particular project. Like Adam Goldberg’s (un-credited?) trust-fund baby-turned-movie-producer character on Entourage – the Whale has money burning a hole in their pocket and they want to spend it on something. Anything.

Some Whales are making a video to promote a movie and they are going all out. What is an extra $300k on a film that costs over $160million with prints and advertising? I have even heard of clips that were paid for by the ultra-wealthy (cough, cough, robber baron) parent of the artist. Daddy must love his baby daughter a whole bunch to hire Joseph Kahn, no?

Now that Starbucks has entered the world of making music videos – they are the new money getting jacked by the old hands. The talk is that Gondry spent US$1.5mil on the latest Paul McCartney clip – and that is just nuts. Starbucks Music got boned by He Whose Name is Always Spoken – and all the other directors and prod cos are sad that they didn’t get THEIR chance at the defenseless checkbook bloated by all those no-whip fraps.

That is what the whale does, they come to Vegas an puke up all their cash to the house. Ain’t life grand? As long as you’re not the whale.

Paul’s boy had an expression – something about karma.

That is probably why there are way more Mirages that Whales these days.

Instant karma's gonna get you
Gonna knock you right on the head
You better get yourself together
Pretty soon you're gonna be dead

Labels: antville, He Who Is Always Named, insider, music video, on the set, prod co

The drummer from Semisonic, Jacob Slichter, wrote a pretty cool book about his life as a “sort of” rock star. He has a self-depreciating wit and the kind of insiders perspective that I enjoy.

Slichter did a five minute piece for NPR on his band going through the process of making a video. The clip was from the 2001 movie “Summer Catch” starring Freddie Prinze Jr. and the pre-workout, pre-Jeter Jessica Biel. Check out the NPR piece, it is – like most things NPR – gently humorous.

It also made me think of a few things:


1. Remember soundtrack videos. Remember? They may never come this way again.

2. Wardrobe expenditures are crazy. The amount of money spent on clothes is nuts. On some clips (Christina Aguilera, Manson) the specific wardrobe is key but on a Semisonic clip? You know the $600 belt buckle ended up in the stylist’s private collection or she “returned” it for a bit of cash.

3. No one saw the video. When you meld properties – a movie, a soundtrack CD and a video – you magnify the potential reward AND the downside. In the glory days of soundtracks, the rising tide of synergy raised all boats. But if even one of the pieces goes wrong, it can damage all of them. Three helium balloons tied together help the whole float high, replace just one balloon with an anvil – and the two balloons are now decorations for the relentlessly earth-bound hunk of steel. Anvil, thy name is Freddie.

4. The silliness of the language in treatments and pitches is truly stunning. Slichter is right to be annoyed that he had to read the same buzz words over and over again – but he wasn’t in the meeting where the label people repeatedly jabbered those buzz words like Tourette’s ridden parrots to the directors and production cos which led to them being regurgitated right back to the label/band in the director’s concept. Aah, creativity.

5. Chris Applebaum has a funny voice.

The ‘other’ side of the process is always fascinating.

Please forward along a link to the video for Semisonics “Over My Head” if you find it. I had no luck.

Labels: insider, music video, prod co, video link

MVPA Awards 2007

Wayne Isham received the lifetime achievement award at the MVPA Awards Wednesday night. There have been twelve other winners, and all of them deserving (Fincher, Julien Temple, Jeff Ayeroff, etc). But look at Wayne’s credit list and marvel that it took as long as it did. My guess is that this is the first night in 12 years worth of award shows that MV’s Falstaffian clip machine has not been working and thus able to attend.

Seriously, look at the list of Wayne’s credits – the only thing longer was the pre-taped intro given by Metallica’s Lars Ulrich. Side note – Lars finally finishing his lengthy spiel may have drawn the biggest cheer of the night. Wayne developed so many trademark music video moments it was shocking to see them all chopped together into the tribute reel. Then Wayne gets up and makes a classically rousing Wayne-style speech – pumping up the crowd on how great and important music videos are, an antidote to the eyes downcast “big changes for the industry” talk from many others on the podium.

The other big winner was Chris Milk. No real surprise there. Milk won several awards (try videostatic for the full list) including director of the year. He spoke about the Kanye “Touch the Sky” clip and reminded the real Evel Knievel (who is suing the production for something) that the clip was an homage. I am not sure how many videos Milk made last year, but there were few (okay zero) weak links.

Another interesting bit was Jonas Akerlund accepting the award for “Smack My Bitch Up” going into the MVPA Hall of Fame. Akerlund said that during the edit Prodigy sent him a fax saying they hated the direction of the clip and they would never use any of the footage under any circumstances. Akerlund finished the edit on his own and an ultra-influential clip was born. Classic story of the long path creativity must always walk. And usually alone.

Labels: Chris Milk, insider, Isham, music video, Prodigy, videostatic

Some jobs seem just over the horizon and that is where they will always be – tantalizingly out of reach for a director or production company.

Most directors have worked on concepting some job that seems to be within their grasp. They talk to the label. They might talk to the artist. The re-work the idea based on the input and then – the job goes to someone else. As frustrating as that can be, I am NOT talking about that.

The “mirage” is a job that doesn’t really exist from the very beginning. It looks real, but your eyes are deceiving you. It will never happen and anyone with enough perspective can spot the mirage for the time-vampire it is. Unfortunately, a director eager to get the job, almost always lacks that perspective.

So why do mirages happen?

Make the label happy
The commissioner might know that they have no money in their budget for a video for the mirage job, but if they admit they have no commissioning to do, their job could easily go away. So the commissioner types up the spec sheet and creates a brief for a job that they know will never go anywhere. And this is assuming the commissioner doesn't have ulterior motives.

There is also the “third bid” phenomenon – a phrase stolen from the commercial world. It is telling that ad-types are civilized enough to have three, and only three, bids on any job while us MV-ers run around by the kajillions chasing the same gig. The label might already know what director they want but policy/tradition dictates they have a certain number of directors writing on a job – even though they may already have a contract drawn up with someone else.

Make the artist/manager happy
The artist might want some crazy big concept that requires a huge budget (space ships ain’t cheap) so the label puts out the addled suggestions of the artist to prospective directors. Perhaps, the manager is trying to appease the artist and reassure him of his status, and gets prod cos and directors to bid on the wild concept. Directors try to make it work and come back with an idea and a budget that is more than the label wanted to spend (shocking!). The label tells the artist “sorry’ and they start over with a do-able concept and budget. Now the production company looks like the bad guy and the label can insist that they tried to get Paul Hunter for the job. This kind of mirage might actually end up happening, but never in the state the gig originally goes out in.

Make the director happy
Yes, sometimes your production company will lie to you. If a director wants write on the job for U2 and the label has never heard of the director, the rep just might tell the director to write up a treatment. The label won’t be looking for it and they will probably ignore it like the “Lost” producers ignore all my emails about how they should make the island into a Mortal Combat style fight-off. The prod co wants to keep their directors happy so why not tell them they just missed out to the biggest name directors in the business. (Hint: if you never get to speak to the