So I decided to look at the percentages of narrative in relation to live performance from several alternative rock music videos as suggested in the pitch. I decided to look at some videos I had collected, 30 Seconds to Mars - Kings and Queens, Jimmy Eat World - The Middle, All Time Low - Time Bomb. These are all alternative rock music videos, and whilst I have looked at other music videos, and have a large collection of such, some of them are too live performance orientated, and considering that we are looking to do narrative to live performance, it is best that we view these percentages.
30 Seconds to Mars - Kings and Queens
A lot of this video has promotional 30 seconds to Mars work, such as intros and credits, they're really stylized and artistic, more so from the new album This is War.
The narrative of the video was 743 seconds, whilst the live performance was 141 seconds.
Somewhat, this isn't what I expected, as I guessed in the pitch I estimated that it was roughly 40% narrative and 60% live performance, yet this video has proven otherwise - immensely. This is an interesting turn of events, because whilst watching it, I felt like I was watching the band a lot; but this is probably due to the fact that the band pop up in the narrative too.
Jimmy Eat World - The Middle
So The Middle is probably one of the most conventional and a very effective music video for an alternative rock genre. Though again, its still kind of stylized in terms of lighting, as I said earlier on in the blog, I like the idea of this music video because it is stylised, which is something I'm looking to do.
The narrative in this video was 109seconds whilst the live performance was 227 seconds - roughly 1/3 is narrative and 2/3 is live performance.
This is more around what I expected and over all, what I actually view in the music video, whilst the narrative and the live performance is set up in the same location/setting, at the same time it never crosses over, which is pretty effective. Typically, as this is one of the most conventional music videos I've looked at, I'm not surprised that there is a more overwhelming percentage of live performance in relation to narrative (as this is what I expected from the genre, as effectively an audience member would expect from this alternative rock genre).
All Time Low - Time Bomb
Again, this is another video I looked at, and whilst this was extreamly focused on iconography (though it's probably also the shortest of the videos I've viewed above) and even product placement, I'm not surprised that there is indeed more live performance than there is narrative because the band really tries to sell themselves.
The narrative was 86seconds whilst the live performance was 109seconds - though the two crossed over by the end.
Whilst the margin between the two is much much less than Jimmy Eat World, there is still more live performance then there is narrative.
---
So in terms of reflection over the three examples above and an effective vote of 2 to 1, we are going to do more live performance than narrative (again, Kings and Queens is quite a stylized video whilst the other two are far more conventional) though we will have to work out how much. The issue that the videos raise is the more developed a narrative is, the more it will exist in context, which will be conventional to represent that fantasy or 'reflection' of the lyrics in video. In reality, whilst I'm slightly surprised by the Kings and Queens video, I'm not by the other two because they do what I predicted, there's more live performance than narrative, and because there's no average percentage between them, this means we have diverse choice to do this. This also means that we could satisfy our audiences more because there's no specific percentage between the two.
No comments:
Post a Comment