Video may be clever and inventive, but for me, the images have always been more of a distraction from the music, whereas watching the artist actually perform the number has always involved me on a purely emotional level.
I'm old enough to remember when MTV premiered. I thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread--music AND images! Before that, we just used to turn the volume off on the TV while the stereo blared. Of course, I smoked a lot of dope in those days so I was easily amused. Then I read a comment Joe Jackson made (anyone remember him?), in which he remarked that his main issue with videos was that the makers of the video provide you with images that everybody is supposed to have regarding the song. That may have been a bit strident of him, but it got me to thinking.
Music videos are their own creation, separate from the song even if they're built around the song. Frank Zappa scoffed at the idea that music videos were an "art form," likening the idea as akin to "Cabbage Patch dolls as a new form of 'soft sculpture,' an interesting comment from a musician who got into film-making early in his career. Like Jackson, Zappa did make that comment in the early days of MTV. Still, presentation-skills training emphasizes that the visual will usually win out over the audio, so music video cannot help but define itself in those terms. That applies to some extent to concert footage. Certainly, there are several concert films I enjoy, but to really appreciate a musical number it has to be audio-only for me.
Not to get off-topic too much, but that is why I will listen only, rather than watch, events such as presidential debates or the annual State of the Union speech. I don't want any visual distractions as I try to parse their statements.
------------------
"Meretricious persiflage!" -- D.H. Lawrence
reply
share