MUSIC VIDEO THEORY #6 - Dan Miller

(Click here for source)

Floating somewhere between advertisement, video art and short film, the genre is a little tricky to pin down.

Dan Miller challenges that the track dominates the video, so goes against Vernallis's theory:

YouTube views do not necessarily translate into song sales. We should ask ourselves: are all Music Videos made to advertise a song? Music Video is much more than just an advertisement for a popular song – the way we define Music Video has not kept pace with the genre‟s evolution. 

He states we shouldn't ignore:

The abstraction, motion graphics and experimental nature of many music videos - both old and new.

Goes on to link the history of the development of the music video:

*To be added*

The decline of the monopoly of MTV due to digital disruption. (link to Exam Q1a Digital Technology, this gives me more freedom, I am part of the rise of the independent producers)

There has always been a tenuous relationship between Music Videos and record companies. The record company argument is typically “why should we fund something we can‟t directly make any money from?”.... Most unfortunately for the record companies, technological change has brought a solution to their problem they may not like. Better and cheaper home computers, software, sound and video equipment have seen a rise in independent producers who can now create professional-looking and sounding songs and Music Videos without record company money. (That's me!!!!!) 

Software and internet sites like iTunes, launched in 2001 and YouTube, 2005, have had a democratising effect on the digital media industry (MIT, 2010). Music Videos can now turn a profit themselves through advertising-supported models. Severing contracts with record companies, bands such as Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails can “finally have a direct relationship with the audience as [they] see fit and appropriate” (Reznor, 2007). Damian Kulash Jr., lead singer of the band Ok Go, highlights that music revenue models are changing and that a large portion of that band‟s income is now generated through sponsorship and advertising in the creation and online viewing of the music videos themselves – as opposed to song sales (2011). In fact, Ok Go „ditched their label‟ after a stoush with them over YouTube embedding rights (Nosowitz, 2010). 

In contrast to the Cambridge definition, it could be argued that some Music Videos are not designed to advertise a song, but to stand as works of art in their own right. As YouTube continues to champion viral media in the form of videos designed to promote themselves, the internet may be killing the TV star and the MTV era may be over. 

That last sentence was a reference to the ironic coincidence(?) that the first music video aired by MTV was "Video Killed The Radio Star", in that case music was being threatened by a visual disruption., and now TV is being threatened by the online digital disruption.