Recently, Iain Duncan wrote:
>"I would be interested in hearing some suggestions as to how a distinction
can be made between the study of individual music videos and of music
channels such as MTV. "<
Well, you can start with the fact that one is a message while the other is a
medium. McLuhan notwithstanding, it's in their respective purposes where they
differ. The first "sells" music, while the latter "sells" advertising.
And, yet, while each is a distinctive and interesting subject, the study of
either theme must also delve into the other, because they share so much
ground. Primarily, because they are both commercial efforts. I know this from
personal experience.
About ten years ago, I had the good (and bad) fortune of starting a cable tv
channel devoted to music videos. In our case, we specialized in Latin Music
videoclips. Our aim was foremost to establish a cable channel, basing our
enterprise on the viability of "narrowcasting" or providing programming for a
segment of the market versus the majority. Since we were based in Miami, a
city with a large Hispanic population, and since music video based
programming was an economical way to provide content, we went with Latin
Music vids. Alas, we were a bit underfunded, and slightly premature in our
effort, and four years later "El Canal Musical" closed shop. The experience
taught me much. However, I'd already started out knowing the biggest truth:
Music Television is still, first, and mostly, TELEVISION, i.e. a business.
Like radio, the medium can influence the music industry to a large degree,
but the first concern of the channel is to get audience and sell advertising
avails.
Selling music is the primary purpose of music videoclips. Remember their
original name was "Promo clips." The artistic aspect is mostly the result of
the music company's concern for a vehicle that will promote the product in a
complimentary manner, and in a manner complementary to the artistic content
(if any) of the product. If the artist has enough clout, (and his/her records
sell enough,) the artist can insist on bigger budgets and more art in the
video production.
And actually, most of the artists and the video producers and directors are
in it for the art first and then the business, but one should never forget
that he product has to sell. I know this, and I try to not forget it because
for some time now I've produced and directed music videos for various artists
and companies, Latin and American. I've been fortunate enough to make videos
for songs that sell "Platinum" and for some that don't sell much but are
great fun to work with. I also produce video presentations for record
companies to use at their conventions, so I get to see a lot of videoclips
and not everything that is called a music video is pretty, (or art.) But a
lot of it is.
An interesting side note: these days we are so exposed to "videos" that you
could say that we're living in a video society. (We are exposed to
newsvideos, sportsvideos, weddingvideos, babyvideos, shoppingvideos, etc.)
Almost everyone has access to a camera. And it's sad to say that there are
many people out in the street faking the moves. I don't say it as an elitist
comment but as a lament that the art gets watered down. To paraphrase Warhol:
in the future everyone will be a video director for fifteen minutes.
On the upside: some good stuff still comes from unexpected quarters, and yes,
the good directors will last longer than fifteen minutes.
To sum up: though music videos can be powerful art, they are supposed to be
commercially effective messages as well. And while Music video channels can
be socially powerful, they also have to be commercially successful media. But
remember: the fact that commercial viability is essential doesn't preclude
that some great films (very short ones) get seen every day on MTV.
Thanks for your attention.
Chad Dominicis, Miami, FL.