People who listen to music do it for a specific
developmental goal: to define themselves and their tribal allegiances, and to
learn about the tribal allegiances of others. This is why their hair splitting
arguments about the difference between two similar-sounding genres carry so
much heat -- it's not about classifying the music, it's about classifying
themselves. The visuals add a lot of valuable social context to the music. You
can see what the artists look like, their age and race and class, how they
dress, how and if they dance, what instruments they show themselves using, what
kind of physical settings they inhabit. If the videos are stylized and
fantastic, there's still plenty of information there; it's just more emotional
and symbolic.
Kids exclusively watch on the computer, or on their
phones. The sharing and discussion of the videos is as important as the videos
themselves, thus the appeal of YouTube and its easy integration with Facebook,
Tumblr, and Twitter etc.
As a child video chart shows were a staple of my weekly
viewing, and even in uni flats it was super common to have a music video
channel on most of the time. They hardly played music we actually strongly
liked either, there was virtually no alt stuff on, just a mix of top 40 pop and
classic oldies/rock.
In theory music video creation must be burgeoning with the
relative inexpensiveness of digital video cameras and editing software (and
platforms like YouTube, at least at the DIY level.)
I occasionally watch a video and enjoy it, but a lot of the
time I just find my attention wavering and I want to listen to the song but do
something else with my eyes. Partly because the videos are often dull and
unimaginative
Probably more interesting is live footage, or like black cab
style alternate / in the radio studio versions of songs. Which is something,
but is of course different from the seemingly moribund art form of the music
video?
No comments:
Post a Comment