Are music videos as important today?

[Lamb]

In the 80s music videos were everything to a singer or a band. Once their new song came out they had to have the absolute best video to go with it for MTV. I see that music videos are still around but do you think they are as important as they used to be? Do you watch them?

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

In the 80s music videos were everything to a singer or a band. Once their new song came out they had to have the absolute best video to go with it for MTV. I see that music videos are still around but do you think they are as important as they used to be? Do you watch them?

Apparently they are. YouTube rakes up several millions of views for new videos of popular artists, sometimes within a day :O
So someone is surely watching, but the medium has changed.
As for me, I 'watch' a few, mostly live DVD's that have been uploaded to YouTube of some favorite artists. There are some great Christian bands that don't get radio play that I enjoy, and some non-Christian bands. I've posted a few of the Christian ones to the "what are you listening to" thread here and there.

 

[Lamb]

I don't watch as many videos as I did when I was young and at home and MTV actually played music LOL

I have watched on cable a channel dedicated to music and some channels have videos. They don't seem all that innovative to me though to catch my attention.

 

[Josiah]

It's always been about the SONG (most of all), the singer and (increasingly) the packaging. All mixed with luck.


My parents are totally into 60's music - rock, pop and folk. And it's interesting to me, because SOME of those songs were great but a lot of those singers were marginal and not infrequently, they were ugly (just saying).... But you learned the song on the RADIO (so looks and performance show didn't matter). You loved the SONG (and only later saw what Mama Cass looks like - and by then, you didn't care) A lot of the performers were pretty stiff, just singing in front of a camera (Elvis being a huge exception) But you look at groups like the Rolling Stones, and see the transition to VISUAL in addition to audio. But even thing, the physical looks of the performer didn't matter (much) - again, with exceptions (Elvis.... Pat Boone).


It seems MTV changed all that for rock and pop (less so Country). People learned the song from TV.... and the VISUAL aspects became a big part of why it sunk or swam. Including singers needing to be better looking. It was SONG, singer(s) and the visual performance (and luck). The boy bands of the 90's were perhaps about the visual as much as the audio.


Now, while TV still plays a role ("The Voice" etc.), it's mostly the internet and YouTube. It means to ME, for MOST, it's back MOSTLY to the music... the teenies and tweenies are still into cute (witness Justin Bieber), the whole Disney music thingy, but I think the elaborate videos of the past are just not around much. I actually think this is good. I think a GOOD singer from out of nowhere - who maybe isn't the best looking or greatest dancer and maybe never was on TV) has a better chance now. I think it's more about the music.



My half cent. At most



.

 

[Josiah]

Here's the thing that kinda amazes me....

Popular singers (often making MILLIONS) often aren't particularly good singers. While I think the music often matters more now than a couple of decades ago, it's NOT typically about the SINGER. It's about the song.... and the packaging.

I go to a lot of theater, and I'm always struck with how a LOT of music theatre actors are FAR better than nearly all the "stars". I've even heard some KIDS on Voice-Kids that are absolutely AMAZING! And I wonder why THEY aren't all over the media making a million bucks a month.

Well..... it's also WHAT you are singing.... and how it's all packages..... and a lot of luck



Example: AMAZING singer - just a KID - who likely will go nowhere.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozEr-9ZZrlY



.

 

[psalms 91]

It was always and still is all about the music for me. I dont care what they look like.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

I can understand some of that about the 60's/70's. I think of Grateful Dead, Janice Joplin, the Stones - not really 'lookers' for sure. But throw in a video and they were golden with the masses (e.g. Grateful Dead 'Touch of Grey'). It brought them to a whole new audience and resurgence. Whether that was good or bad is up to debate. Personally, I don't think they could carry a tune even if someone else did it for them

With some of the bands I enjoy (some I post here, some I can't) the videos are quite imaginative. They're hired out to independent film-makers and some are cinema quality. Often, the bands don't even appear, or perhaps only as caricatures of themselves. So it's in this that video helps tell the story of the song, and that appeals to me

 

[Andrew]

Yep the medium has changed. There is nothing new under the sun and in the age of innovation and technology we win some and lose some. Cassette tapes (analog) actually holds true sound BUT there is a catch, you have to have the proper hardware to hear it in all its glory, but the systems were not cheap therefore we gave in to hand held devices that took away from the full sound... analog had died and were replaced by digital compact disc. Likewise the stereo was short lived and had become bulkier and the masses preferred a slim hand held cd player... again losing it's quality. Videos in the 80s and 90s were a step up from radio because now you had a visual radio and everyone owned a tv. Mp3 replaced the cd and again you either had to hook your computer to a stereo or transfer it to an iPod, the ladder leaving you with very very poor quality.
Hardly any of these kids today actually listen through headphones and just play it off there phone garbage... you can bluetooth it to a speaker but it's still losing its stereo (left and right) quality (but its better or equal to the tv)...
Remember the good o days of writing down note for note music on paper to share it?
Records are making a come back so they say, I have yet to buy a record player but I remember have a terrible time replacing the needle.
Youtube today is the new music video outlet, I enjoy some Mtv classic still because I just don't care for todays music, it's too artificial, enhanced, pitch corrected and there is no raw elements in it, I do believe the 90s were the last decade of raw emotional and real composition.
Music videos deserve to be shared on television because the phone it still a freaking phone lol
Today it's hard to make a living as a musician because they depend on live shows for income which is difficult for those who try and mimic the sound of their over produced pitch perfect album. Concerts are viewed through phones too while they are at the actual event!! Yuck! People record live performances via smart phone and upload a terrible terrible sound and video instead of just living in the moment..
rabble rabble rabble lol im done

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

One of the things I appreciated growing up was that my parents always had some of the best stereo equipment, turntables, EQ's, etc. And I LOVED albums. A single scratch would ruin my whole week if it was a favorite. Our stereo receiver had gauge on it so that you could fine-tune when you had the best reception for an FM station. Sometimes we could pull in stations so there was absolutely no static, it was that exact. One station had a program on Sunday nights called 'headphone radio' - and we always had the best headphones with the most dynamic range. So you can imagine a great set of headphones with a receiver that could be fine-tuned for no static

Eta: Haha! I found it!

 

[tango]

I suppose a lot depends on the target audience. When I think back to my teenage years, most of the girls I knew were into either Duran Duran or Bros or similar (depending on whether they were a little older or a little younger than me). The guys were mostly into Taylor Dayne, Tiffany, Belinda Carlisle etc. It was sadly predictable - young girls swooning over the latest male teenybopper star and young guys gawking at the pretty girls singing. Of course if you want to enhance the whole thing of teens and preteens going wild for the latest sensation it helps that they are visually attractive. Not that any of the fans have the slightest chance of getting into a relationship with them but if you want the fans to dream you have to have someone they will actually dream about.

So much modern "music", especially the kind aimed at teens and preteens, seems to be so mass-produced and could be sung by just about anybody. It does seem to me you could literally walk into the street, grab four or five people at random, give them a couple of hours of singing lessons and you'd probably have a band every bit as good as the current crop of teenyboppers. So you might as well manufacture a band that looks good as a band that is pug ugly.

I've been into rock and metal since I was about 12, and historically that has been so male-dominated I wouldn't expect to find performers I found attractive. That said I did get the chance to see Lisa Dominique play live (and I managed to get right to the front, practically pressed against the stage) when I was about 18, which was an experience.

 

[Lamb]

I agree with Josiah that the celebrity singers aren't necessarily excellent singers but the marketing of them is what makes them famous.

IDay, I'm jealous you had good equipment because I had a ratty old radio where I couldn't understand the lyrics and to this day I sing the wrong words loudly

DHoffmann, you brought up many good points and the part about the money not being made by the music but what follows is spot on. We can listen to the music for free anywhere so why buy it?

Tango, I think rock and metal are still male dominated genres. There are only a couple of female led bands that I have on my ipod and their voices just get annoying after a couple songs.

 

[tango]

Tango, I think rock and metal are still male dominated genres. There are only a couple of female led bands that I have on my ipod and their voices just get annoying after a couple songs.

Most rock and metal bands feature male performers but it's far more commonplace to find female fans now than it was back in the 80s. When I first enjoyed metal it was probably safe to say that at least 98% of metal fans were men. It was curious to see the lead singer of Whitesnake gyrating on stage in a way that suggested "hey, do you fancy me" in front of an audience that was almost entirely male, in an era that was generally intolerant of homosexuality - needless to say the general response from the audience was 'er, no".

It takes a particular kind of female voice to work as part of a rock or metal band. Lisa Dominique was often presented as something of a dollybird rocker but I remember her having a voice that worked. Suzi Quatro had a voice that worked. Warlock had a female singer (I think she was Doro Pesch?) and although I wasn't familiar with much of their work I do recall her voice working well with the band. My wife has a beautiful singing voice (she's the musical one in the family!) but her voice just doesn't work if she's singing along to something heavier.

 

[Josiah]

LONG ago, I had a "thing" for Hillary Duff.... And it had NOTHING to do with her singing talent...and certainly not her silly TV show.... I just thought she was cute. Listening to her sing was just what I had to do to enjoy the view

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

There's a sub-genre of metal that I guess would be considered 'Celtic' where a number of women have found quite a bit of popularity with the metal crowd. Some of them are quite good. Here's a good example - It's 'CH approved listening' (just ignore the 'new age' nonsense lyrics )
And for bands like this it's video that can make all the difference whether they catch on with their 'niche' audience.

 

[tango]

LONG ago, I had a "thing" for Hillary Duff.... And it had NOTHING to do with her singing talent...and certainly not her silly TV show.... I just thought she was cute. Listening to her sing was just what I had to do to enjoy the view

I often wonder how many of the teeny-boppers over the years would have had any interest in their pop idols, had they been spectacularly ugly. When you've got boy bands that appeal almost exclusively to teenage girls and girl bands that appeal almost exclusively to teenage boys, one has to wonder whether the musical talent (if it even exists) is any part of the equation.

I must admit I enjoyed the Lisa Dominique concert I went to, and not just because Lisa Dominique was cute and I got to be right at the front - I enjoyed her music. Other female singers during my teenage years were much as you describe - the music is passable but the view was enjoyable. From what I heard during my teenage years Warlock enjoyed a surge in popularity, at least among young men, after the (female) lead singer suffered a rather spectacular wardrobe malfunction live on stage.

 

[Andrew]

LONG ago, I had a "thing" for Hillary Duff.... And it had NOTHING to do with her singing talent...and certainly not her silly TV show.... I just thought she was cute. Listening to her sing was just what I had to do to enjoy the view

Bwahahaha!!!

 

[NewCreation435]

They are no longer important to me, but I am sure with the younger generation they are still important. It is just that there are so many different platforms now to share things including people who make their own music. I had a client two years ago who did his own rap music. He wasn't even that good, but put it on shockwave and other people listened to it

 

[Romanos]

I don't see why they wouldn't be, if anything, it's another front that views can be shown off.