30frames

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.

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

The LA Times did another one of their “Ultimate Top Ten Lists” – cataloging the artists that have made the most money in the last year. The musician with the biggest/longest tour are always the champs and in 2007 it was The Police that earned the most. Less than 10% of their earnings were from selling music and the bulk of the cash came from concert ticket sales – it helps to have an fan base with well-paying jobs (i.e old people like The Police and the Stones).

Digital tracks grew, but still ended up being a drop in the bucket for artists. The ring-tone phenomenon also does not look quite as savior-y as it once appeared:

"Likewise, although some performers are developing comfortable incomes from ring-tone sales, the mostly young R&B, hip-hop and pop acts who placed highest on SoundScan's ring-tone/master-tone tallies aren't anywhere near the top of either concert tour or album sales rankings. So ring tone isn't included -- yet -- because it wouldn't affect any rankings in the Ultimate Top 10." - LAT

The fact that touring is such a big part of the money makes it clear why Live Nation wanted that fat chunk of the ticket and merch from Madonna (and apparently Jonas Bros as well).

CDs have become the loss leader for the artist – the thing that they do to get them back out on the road for some more of those lucrative concert dates.

The music is the loss leader for the merchants at Best Buy or Target – getting people in the door with discounted CDs where they will (hopefully) buy the more profitable Monster Cables and fabric softener.

The music video was always the loss leader for the record label – the thing that they pay for (and make zero money from) to promote the music, but the music itself seems to have become another loss leader. You can see why music video budgets are shrinking – the money the labels have is shrinking AND the music video process is now even one more step removed from the profits (touring and merch).

Music videos were never profitable for labels on their own, but at least they were tied to the core business - they helped sell records. Now that the core business is concert tickets and t-shirts?

Each step removed from the actual income, means less dollars makes it through. Like college buddies sipping your beer before they pass it on down the stadium row from the vendor – the thirsty guy at the end only ends up with backwash and sheepish looks from his friends.

Maybe Live Nation wants to hire someone to make videos to show at concerts to encourage fans to go out to the lobby and enjoy some delicious Jonas Brothers t-shirts.

Labels: Madonna, media, music video, 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