30frames

Retirement is not permanent. Not in boxing. Not in entertainment – especially not in the rap game. Anyone who was surprised that Jay-Z released his “Kingdom Come” comeback CD after “quitting” to head up Def Jam, well, Kanye and Fiddy have a bridge they wanna sell you.

However, I was surprised to hear recently that Jay-Z has another album coming out – less than a year after his last one. I first heard the news, and I kind of groaned a little bit – we all know what can happen when a comeback is hurried into the marketplace before the audience is actually hungry for it.

I had heard nothing about this until a piece came out in the NYT about Jay-Z’s new record and its ties to the upcoming American Gangster macho Oscar bait from Ridley Scott. Apparently the whole album is “inspired” by the Russell Crowe – Denzel Washington scenery chew-fest.

“It immediately clicked with me,” said Jay-Z, who has made passing references to gangster movies in previous recordings but has never delved so deeply into the genre. “Like ‘Scarface,’ or any one of those films, you take the good out of it, and you can see it as an inspiring film.” – NYT

So far, none of this sounds good to me. It’s too soon, the album seems to be shackled to a film which makes it more of a marketing piece than inspired creation. And of course, Jigga’s last music was very underwhelming.

And I was also troubled by the over the top look of the videos for Kingdom Come. Sure Jay looked amazing selling Budweiser in that Monaco Tourism Board spot – but was that what we wanted from Hova? Most people passed on Kingdom Come, which made me question even more the motives for Jay’s quick come-back. All signs pointed to a bloated, ego-fueled disaster … then I saw ...

The clip for “Blue Magic” – all stripped back menace and desolate urban drug rhymes. This is Jay out coke-ing the Clipse – as raw and real a record as Jay has made in years (ever?). My fears went out the window – at least for this first song. This is the b/w intensity of “99 Problems” with the late-night, broken-glass beats that first got Pharrell noticed. Hell, Jay's not even in the damn vid.

The video has been added and pulled all over the web. Anyone who has a stable link should send it along to me. But you should def watch the video - my rambling will make more sense. Try onsmash or YouToogle.

Read the NYT interview and you can see that Jay seems really amped up by the movie that the album is inspired by. Jay has spent a few years being professionally non-plussed so that kind of fire seems like a good thing.

The clip – directed by Rik Cordero – feels like an episode of “The Wire” come to life with a million and one things sure to make MTV/BET nervous (but watch them still play it anyway – it is JAY after all). This video (or “trailer” ?!?) is all the things that “Show Me” was not – and that is a good thing.

Jay has been a lot of things, but he must have realized that “self-satisfied mogul" is not a persona that we are too interested in. Bigger is not necessarily better. This first track off American Gangster heads in a new direction and the video (assuming this is the “real” video for the track) is spot on perfect for the music.

All in all, “Blue Magic” seems like the perfect comeback video – and Jay (label prez and artist) didn’t have to pay a million bucks for it either.


Update - over on antville, spit posted this link to photos from Pharrell's blog. These images apparently show the "real" video shoot being directed by Hype. Sigh. My enthusiasm is waning as I see the glossy cars and flashing light sets. Who knows if this glossy stuff will be intercut with the b/w drug stuff or if this trailer is really just a teaser to up the street cred.

Labels: jay-z, label, music video, philosophy, review, selling, video link, YouTube

I have posted before about Obtusity and how different the posts are from what I do here. I poke around in the whys and the hows of video making and the 'Tus captures the layered meaning and art of it all.

Another web source I turn to a lot is obviously Videostatic and I have written about that before as well. But Steve over at VS has gone and flipped the script on us.

Check out his philosophical review of the latest Fray video. He digs into the choices made by video directors and comes up with his own, well-reasoned and insightful answers.

[D]ebate whether a band is best served by an artistic, highly conceptual clip or a more basic, performance-driven. The former works very well for bands that derive a portion of their cache by being associated with the avant garde — think Radiohead, Bjork or most indie rock bands — but it also runs the risk of overwhelming an act hasn't yet developed or communicated an identity. For instance, will anyone remember Justice and the song "D.A.N.C.E." as anything more than The T-Shirt video?

Ha. That is great stuff. Read the whole thing (it's actually much shorter than my usual ramblings on such matters). Steve even casts a stone or two at the sacred cows of the MV world - and you know I love that shit.

Labels: music video, philosophy, review, Rihanna, Spike Jonze

Movie reviewers like to criticize certain films that they perceive as being over-cut for their “music video editing” – and it is not a compliment. Some old school filmies blame MVs for ruining the attention span of the planet’s young. But I would say that many video directors and fans are less obsessed with super fast edits than they are with …

One take videos. Every director who has ever made (or thought of making) a music video has considered the idea of a one taker. Even if it is only in his/her mind, every director has their own personal take on how they would do it. Kind of like the Aristocrats of promo clips.

Kev over on Antville compiled a massive list of one take videos a few years back and many added and added to it. Check it out, it is a mighty list indeed. A brand-new addition to that list is …

Patrick Daughters’ new Feist clip. Everyone loves it. Well most everyone.

The reason that this one-take video stands out is because the structure of the clip actually works with the feel of the visuals and the building low-fi emotionality of the music.

So many one-take videos have a forced feel where I end up noticing how much of a strain it is to maintain the paper-thin conceit of no edits. Most one-take directors (MV and otherwise) seem to be shooting for “bravura” and end up missing the point all together.

Watch the Feist "1234" video and try not to have a smile on your face by the last choruses. It is a joy to watch.

Obviously there are many other things the director did right, from the not-too-slick dancers and the whimsical Jet Li wall running choreography, the ZOOM-like wardrobe. The artist and the song are (of course) pretty good, too. But the one-take “gag” never overwhelms the vibe of it all – which is why the video works so well. My only minor ding is that you never really get to see the performer's face very well, a common one take issue.

This clip is about the artist and the song and not the director waving his arms to draw attention to his technical achievement. Like seduction, flatulence and refereeing a basketball game - technical achievement is done well when no one even notices it is being done at all.

Labels: antville, music video, review, video link

The list of Grammy nominated videos came out this week. I believe the selections are solid and remind me of the choices the Grammy voters seem to make every year. In the same way a famous actor playing a character that is fat/ugly/retarded almost assures an Oscar nod, the Grammys seem to look for certain things.

The main thing they look for is a “hook.” Hooks are good, they sell treatments to labels and make for some memorable videos. The Grammy voters like ultra-high concept stuff like “Hey Ya!” and the dancing Walken video – which is certainly not a bad thing.

This year the nominees are Big & Rich with a tear-jerker about war veterans, The Killers with a telenovella, Chili Peppers with themselves playing dress-up, Underoath wedged into a nightmare dollhouse and OK GO bouncing around on choreographed treadmills. I believe OK GO is/will be one of the most significant and memorable clips for this era of music video, despite what some people might think. The full list of Grammy nominations is here.

On a side note, the long-form nominations are usually a collection of uninteresting concert footage, backstage interviews and old videos. This year is the same except for the Death Cab collection which is fresh new stuff. Congrats for those involved.

Back to the short-form nominees. All these are good videos and the makers should be proud. High concept videos are neither good nor bad in my book – some are excellent others are Trapped in the Closet. Those big hooks and high concepts certainly jump off the page in treatment form, which is definitely a good thing.

Hook videos are sort of the opposite of the “execution” videos I have written about before. Execution videos, like Beyonce’s “Crazy in Love” or No Doubt’s “Hella Good” are not ‘about’ any one thing but rather more focused on performance, the photography and style. Execution videos are also often harder to describe in one sentence, at least in a way that makes them sound like a good idea for a label to shell out $$$ for. Seriously, Hella Good is the band in vaguely futuristic/apocalyptic looks, completely alone in and around a decrepit cargo ship all shot in black and white. That doesn’t sound great in one sentence, but the final video was excellent (IMO). Hook videos are the opposite, with quick, easily digestable pitches (RHCP perform on stage in dressed and shot like a living history book of rock and roll, from British Invasion to Glam Metal and everything in between). Both “types” of videos (and there are obviously way more variations and shades of grey than just these two) can produce great results but the hookier ideas are easier to sell to the client and they are usually the kind that award shows (like the Grammys) notice.

I, personally, don’t think that hook videos are usually the best for a new artist. The performers can get lost in the hub-bub of the idea, which is fine if you are as famous as the Killers or Flea, but not so good if you are the guys in Underoath.

I don’t think that the Underoath video really serves the band because most viewers have never seen them before and after watching the video, still haven't seen them. I feel like I wouldn’t recognize them if I saw them again. To me, they get lost in the cool visuals of the clip. Same thing for that Jamiroquai “Virtual Insanity” video, their only clip that ever aired much in the US. I am still not sure I know anything about the group. Band? Solo guy? I don’t know. I do know the Jamiroquai dude is famous in the UK but Americans don’t dance we just pull up our pants and do the roc-a-way.

Execution videos usually make better introductions to new performers or artists switching to a new image – “Crazy in Love” or Christina’s first “Genie in a Bottle.” Execution videos usually have longer close-ups and they focus more on performance without too much story, effects or concept getting in the way. I have encountered labels booking a job based on a hooky concept that is fun to read and then the same execs try to turn the finished clip into an execution video during the shoot and/or edit, usually with poor results.

On a side note, I have recently figured out how to see who logged onto this blog and what link referred them and so on. Basic stuff, but that’s how I roll. Anyway – I have been getting a trickle of traffic from people who have Googled “execution videos” and are really looking for something far, far darker that I have to offer.

I know some commenters don’t like the tone of the blog, because it is too grim and they don’t like the view I have of the music video industry. To those people I say, Sony and Warner Bros laid off MORE employees in the video departments on Friday. I ain’t making this stuff up and at least no one gets “executed” here.

Labels: contest, media, music video, review, videostatic

Christina Aguilera "Hurt" and Jay-Z "Show Me What You Got"

These two videos are linked in my mind, perhaps because they came out on back to back days - but I think there is also something deeper tying them together.

These two videos are both prime examples of "execution" clips. Nothing new or different here, just two established artists doing what they do well. No ground is broken, but sometimes that is okay. Nobody goes to see the Rolling Stones in concert to hear the new stuff, we all wanna hear "Satisfaction" and "Wild Horses." Both the Christina and the Hova clips fall into the category of "if it ain't broke - don't fix it."

Update: The Sony website has a good quality version of the "Hurt" video here.

Conceptually, this vintage circus look is cool and is just the kind of thing that Floria could take in a cool/weird direction. Did she? Well, with Christina as her listed co-director, the visuals always stay between the lines. The look was all sepia and pretty - clearly focused on making Christina look Beautiful. Even if she is hanging with the sideshow freaks, Christina is never a freak, she’s pretty as can be. To my eyes, the period circus was handled much better by Bryan Barber in Outkast's "Whole World" clip.

Christina's "Hurt" feels like a thematic rehash of "Beautiful" - but this is the new faux-deep song every thirteen year old girl and gay guy cranks up on their headphones when the world does them wrong and they wanna just curl up with their feelings for a while (with me it usually "Dirty Deeds" or the Starlight Express soundtrack). Mission accomplished, I guess. This is probably exactly the video they were going for and they got it.


Now on to a better clip (to me) and in some ways a bigger disappointment, Jay Z's “Show Me.” The director, F. Gary Gray, was one of the absolute titans of the music video field before he left to direct big features like “The Italian Job.” Gary was the first (as I recall) “star” director where the artists and labels wanted him first and then the concept came later. Gary has been out of music videos for 6+ years, but now he is back with the biggest name in the rap game.

The clip has cars, boats and a party at a house – essentially a Ca$h Money video with a bigger budget and a talented director. The video is fun and the million dollar budget is all on the screen, unlike some recent Hype clips where if you watch closely you can see the “director” running out the back of the soundstage with a suitcase full of the label’s cash.

This video is good, but I was hoping for great from Mr. Gray. That being said, the film-making is flawless. The angles are sharp, the cars and the people look like movie stars and the locations in Europe look tremendous. The boxes and strips edit technique also worked for me – adding to the rhythm of it all. Jay-Z went outside the box with “99 Problems” but now he is right back inside the box – but at least he looks damn good doing it. It is all in the execution.

To watch Jay-Z you have to register at the IDJ site (thanks Video Static) or settle for grainy Youtube.

Post-script - the Village Voice has noted that some bigger budgeted videos are getting made. I don't think that all their examples actually are big-budgeted, but at least they get paid to write so they must know something.

Labels: media, music video, review, video link

Most videos, at least in the States, are not funny. They are sexy (about 60% of the time), or dangerous (30%) because that is what labels think sells records.

Are the labels wrong? I dunno. People tend to remember the funny Weezer clips, but I'm not sure how much they prompt people to buy CDs.

Most people seem to buy records because they want to either be the artist or have sex with the artist. They usually want to be the artist, just so they can sleep with the other people in the video. That photo above is the artist in a massive ball of her own arm-pit hair - so we can see they are not going for the sexy on this clip.

That being said, this video is great. I have enjoyed Lady Sovereign's music in the past and Brian Beletic always has a fresh perspective.

I especially love the scary monkey men and the Tetris performance set-up. Lupe Fiasco's "I Gotcha" also has some old school video game action in his recent clip. Maybe this is a trend.

Click on the photo below to enjoy the S-O-V.

Labels: music video, review, video link

The Futureheads - "Worry About it Later"
This video is the model of simplicity. The look is low-key and places the song and the band at the forefront. I like this video alot, but I have always been a fan of this band. I have also, always been a fan of simple videos, but keeping it simple is easier when the song and the sound is this good.

I think more videos should be simple. In my opinion, good videos are about one thing. Not three things, just one. Even hyperactive Dave Meyers/Missy Elliot videos (or classic Hype/Busta jobs) with a new set-up for every lyric are unified by the crazy style and the fact that the one thing the video is about is showcasing the artist's eclectic, free-ranging lyrical humor.

Too many videos take a kitchen-sink approach to try and catch the audience's attention with sheer visual noise. This is a zero-sum game and is sure to leave the viewers wondering who the artist is and what the song is about. Putting more stuff on the screen is rarely the right answer, but it is the easiest answer to come up with.

What is an example, how about the new Janet Jackson "So Excited" video by Joseph "Torque" Kahn. This clip has lots of dancing (good), a flying, semi-transparent Lambo in a color not seen in the rest of the video (bad), and Janet getting freaky in a subway bathroom while her fiancee, JD, shaves somewhere nearby. It looks pricey, but left me wondering what they were trying to say.

This "more is better" ethos puts a strain on uninspired directors as budgets have come down, since with less money, how do you give the label more? Quality is better than quantity, but music video directors are not known for their restraint. To give directors some credit, artists and labels are often pushing for more and bigger, since they too are usually out of ideas.

This "keep it simple" strategy is certainly not always successful, as in this technically impressive but still flat-feeling NIN video for "Only" directed by Fight Clubbin' Fincher.

Once again, much props to antville for the post that started this train of thought.

Labels: antville, music video, review, selling

Music videos are expensive, so it seems logical that record labels would not want to pay for them twice. But yet they do. A couple times a year, labels choose to re-shoot entire videos because they are not happy with the clip they got the first time around. Obviously this happens only for artists and/or songs the labels are really high on. This includes big stars like Kanye and Pharrell but also baby artists that the label wants to support (because they have signed them to big contracts, because they have powerful managers or simply because they like their potential).

Here are two different versions of the video for the song "Angel" by Pharrell of his 2006 solo release. The first version was never finished, as you can tell by the time code in the corner and the unfinished post effects. I believe this was directed by Little X, or Mr. X as he sometimes goes by these days. The clip seems fine, but obviously the label (or the artist or the manager) was not happy. I'm not sure why, since I was not involved in this project, but it could be something major (We wanted dance numbers) or seemingly minor (The artist looks too old/fat/tired). The reason they re-shot this particular clip is even murkier when you see the "new" version they did.

This is the version that got released to music television, directed by Hype Williams. Why go to Hype when you didn't like the X version confounds me. These two videos are not significantly different. The lighting and colors and hoochies are new - but why pay so much more for a whole new one? I don't know. The labels paid big bucks to get Hype, and then the video got very little run on TV anyway.

Up next is a video by "Mr. Bush Doesn't Care About Black People" himself - Kanye West. In 2005 he released a song called "Heard Em Say" and he originally commissioned Michel Gondry to do the video. Kanye pretty much makes his own decisions on videos and I have heard (though I have zero personal knowledge of this) that Kanye spends his own money on videos and then charges the labels to use them to promote his music. (This is actually something I want to write about more, later on.)

Kanye shot the first version with Michel Gondry in NYC and Gondry did his stop-motion child-like wonder thing. Gondry is one of those guys who is very respected, especially amongst the white, film-school kids who comment on websites like antville and other places. There is a cool article here about the process of Gondry making the video. The final video, in my opinion, is an "okay" version of the Gondry thing - not great but certainly in the wheelhouse of what one might expect when you give the Frenchman some money.

Now, while this video is being finished - stop motion animation means a long post process - Kanye decides he wants another video for the track. Why? I dunno. Maybe he didn't like the look of what Gondry was doing. Maybe he thought it was taking too long and radio was already playing the single so he couldn't wait. Maybe he realized that French storybook visuals might not play in the hood (though, who in the hood is into songs with Adam Levine on the hook, I'm not sure). In any event, Kanye does a new version of the clip with a simple b/w performance and animation by Bill Plympton.

When video production companies and directors wonder why the labels cannot come up with more money to do a two-day shoot instead of a one-day rush-fest for some artist - they all remember that the labels spent twice on clips like these.

Are the "new" videos better than the original ones? Are they worth the dough? What do you think?

Labels: antville, He Who Is Always Named, music video, on the set, review