|
|
|
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
 Post subject: Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 6:57 pm 
norad wrote: I like that you use our site but could you please not hotlink images from it?
Thank you.  Sorry about that. I tried to post the one from twitpic, but it wouldn't work. It's edited now... _________________ 
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Oct 2009 | Posts: 254 | Location: Melbourne
|
|
  |
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 10:45 pm
nemo1 wrote: Black lightning only strikes once? 
Huhzawhut? Saellys wrote: The most likely scenario is that they'll spend a crap ton of money making a video that will be seen a few thousand times in total. Nah. I don't believe Eisley or their label have a "crap ton" of money to drop on a video. Maybe Eisley could contract with ARK Music Factory to make their next video. Rebecca Black's mom seems to have gotten her moneys worth from the $2K she paid her daughter's label. I'm not taking about return on investment but on the productions values. Not great, but pretty good for $2K. Maybe Eisley could get the same iconic car and rapper? BTW - Off topic, but is that some industry standard now.? Mom pays 2K for a video instead of label fronting the costs? Or is this disreputable like model "talent searches" that make the model pay for head shots and such? Given the questionable value of videos to bands (except for the biggest stars) I'm pretty sure we'll see mostly low budget/low concept videos from bands if they bother at all. The majority of band videos will come from the fan base. A lot of "live" low fi phone videos sure. But some creative fans will no doubt come up with some potentially viral stuff that'll help push the band along. Anyone like that here?  _________________ 
|
|
|
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 | Posts: 995 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 2:01 am
i am excited. their videos are usually really good. as far as the power of a music video. i know the US they dont have as much power as they used to. but canada and the like still have video only channels still right (much music?) and record companies still feel they must be viable. i mean look at lady gagas vids. they must cost a ton to make. _________________ Wil's excellent description of me. wilsmith wrote: You're the Anti-Censorship+Topless Twitpic Parodying+Youth Group Video Directing guy that's a champion for the 1st amendment, Videogames as Art, and unrepentant file sharing... Instagram - Facebook - Twitter - YouTube |
|
|
Joined: 09 Aug 2004 | Posts: 4836 | Location: illinois
|
|
 |
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 3:21 am
Rebecca Black reminds me of those signs you see that say "Does Advertising Work? It just did!" Think of her music what you will, those millions of views show that it's still a viable medium. True, the method of delivering the medium has changed. But the artists making their own videos really isn't a new concept. Hell,in the 90s, videos weren't made *until* songs proved their meddle. Cases in point: "Closing Time " by Semisonic, "Standing in a Phone Booth I Can't Remember The Rest of the Title Because It's long" by Primitive Radio Gods, and I could go on and on... And why the hate for "open spaces?" Sometimes that is an effective medium. I pitched an idea to Boyd for "Golly Sandra" that was based on such a method. I told him it would be cool just to set up the band around their living room, with the camera going around in a circular fashion while the band played. To make it visually striking, have it in either B&W or a Sepia-tone. No gimmicky stuff, just straight performance. It fits the song well, don't you think? And I think the video would have worked wonderfully for presenting the song as a serious, "adult contemporary" number. Apparently WB wasn't interested in pushing that song. Bummer. I thought that "Golly Sandra" kind of reminds me of this in mood/tempo, and this video is effective for the song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=depsFULhqV8 _________________ "Die Sonne scheint noch" -- Sophie Scholl <3 <3 <3 |
|
|
Joined: 22 Jun 2004 | Posts: 535 | Location: texas is the reason
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 5:48 am
I tried to make my comment as down-less/ upful as possible. If videos are for the already-existing fanbase, then I'm sure whatever they do will be great. I could watch Chauntelle staring off into space in Marvelous Things over and over  As a "fan", truly all I want is as many as people as possible get to experience the glory of Eisley. Rebecca Black, whether she can sing or not (and she's not really terrible even if you take Autotune away), found a way to get herself out there. I just think it's too bad she's too much of a joke to put out her debut CD, It takes a Nation of Millions to hold me Black".
And thanks for the news flash-- I always thought the #1 cause of cat death was getting run over by Smart cars... |
|
|
Joined: 11 Nov 2010 | Posts: 57 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 6:08 am
Nowhere Man wrote: Way to ruin it, back to the drawing board for them. I prefer just the band performing in an intersting area to ones with a story the band had nothing to do with writing, where they make the musicians try to act. There's more of a chance of things going badly. I think Sherri did a nice job in the Telescope Eyes vid though. I've enjoyed all their videos so far and am looking forward to a new one. If I wanted to see the band perform the song, I'd watch a live video. Videos with a concept can go terribly wrong if a) the action onscreen is 100% verbatim to what's being sung at that moment a la "Friday," or b) the plot-heavy video relies on nonexistent acting skills from band members. Previous Eisley videos have proven that the Duprees can hold their own in a three minute film. gundamit wrote: Saellys wrote: The most likely scenario is that they'll spend a crap ton of money making a video that will be seen a few thousand times in total. Nah. I don't believe Eisley or their label have a "crap ton" of money to drop on a video. ... Given the questionable value of videos to bands (except for the biggest stars) I'm pretty sure we'll see mostly low budget/low concept videos from bands if they bother at all. The majority of band videos will come from the fan base. A lot of "live" low fi phone videos sure. But some creative fans will no doubt come up with some potentially viral stuff that'll help push the band along. Anyone like that here? My "they" referred to bands in general who make videos. Just off the top of my head, Someone Still Loves You Boris Yeltsin paid $9000 for the "Think I Wanna Die" video, which got posted on a couple indie music news aggregator sites, and that's about it. 214,000 views in the last three years. Money well spent? I doubt they think of it that way, but I'm sure they have fond memories of a weekend spent freezing in pools and breaking Will's hand. Now they make no-budget videos with local filmmakers that are of equivalent quality and considerably more entertaining (though a lot less pretty without the Dupree girls). Eisley probably don't have that kind of cash floating around, but EVR might be able to front it. I'd much prefer that they spend whatever their budget is on the same crew that did the "Invasion" promo. That way they already know the product will be decent. And speaking of videos contributed by the fans... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6F4vfCxVEHY I can't believe this hasn't been removed yet. _________________ INTELLECT AND ROMANCE OVER BRUTE FORCE AND CYNICISM Smokemonster |
|
|
Joined: 24 Sep 2003 | Posts: 14510 | Location: Alone on an airplane, fallin' asleep against the windowpane...
|
|
  |
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 6:29 am
Saellys wrote: Nowhere Man wrote: Way to ruin it, back to the drawing board for them. I prefer just the band performing in an intersting area to ones with a story the band had nothing to do with writing, where they make the musicians try to act. There's more of a chance of things going badly. I think Sherri did a nice job in the Telescope Eyes vid though. I've enjoyed all their videos so far and am looking forward to a new one. If I wanted to see the band perform the song, I'd watch a live video. Videos with a concept can go terribly wrong if a) the action onscreen is 100% verbatim to what's being sung at that moment a la "Friday," or b) the plot-heavy video relies on nonexistent acting skills from band members. Previous Eisley videos have proven that the Duprees can hold their own in a three minute film. gundamit wrote: Saellys wrote: The most likely scenario is that they'll spend a crap ton of money making a video that will be seen a few thousand times in total. Nah. I don't believe Eisley or their label have a "crap ton" of money to drop on a video. ... Given the questionable value of videos to bands (except for the biggest stars) I'm pretty sure we'll see mostly low budget/low concept videos from bands if they bother at all. The majority of band videos will come from the fan base. A lot of "live" low fi phone videos sure. But some creative fans will no doubt come up with some potentially viral stuff that'll help push the band along. Anyone like that here? My "they" referred to bands in general who make videos. Just off the top of my head, Someone Still Loves You Boris Yeltsin paid $9000 for the "Think I Wanna Die" video, which got posted on a couple indie music news aggregator sites, and that's about it. 214,000 views in the last three years. Money well spent? I doubt they think of it that way, but I'm sure they have fond memories of a weekend spent freezing in pools and breaking Will's hand. Now they make no-budget videos with local filmmakers that are of equivalent quality and considerably more entertaining (though a lot less pretty without the Dupree girls). Eisley probably don't have that kind of cash floating around, but EVR might be able to front it. I'd much prefer that they spend whatever their budget is on the same crew that did the "Invasion" promo. That way they already know the product will be decent. And speaking of videos contributed by the fans... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6F4vfCxVEHY I can't believe this hasn't been removed yet. A lot of the reason SSLYBY doesn't spend that much now is because they, pretty much, have to pay for most of their stuff themselves. Jeremy Larson and I were talking about that. Their label makes them pay for their own manager and/or publicist, along with a few other things, I believe. So I'm not surprised that they don't make crazy expensive videos if they're label isn't shelling out the money for them to. That's kind of the label's job and they're not really doing it. I kind of hope it's not Smarter. I can't see the music video going well unless they, somehow, place them on a boat to build up the "into the sea you fell..." parts and all that jazz because everybody loves boats now, thanks to The Lonely Island. I have a feeling that any Sherri song that's made into a music video could turn out very cheesy if the director hired for it doesn't "get" the band. I'm not saying Sherri's song are cheesy, but placed into a music video, the video will probably be cheesy due to the lyrical content, with the exception of Mr. Moon and possibly, Please. Stacy songs could be done a little more artfully, I think. I'm just hoping that the person brought in for the video will actually do chosen song justice. _________________ cynlovescandy wrote: kulvir wrote: I bet R. Kelly approves of peeing in the shower. The world is R. Kelly's shower. It's a golden world. Nowhere Man wrote: mr pine wrote: is there a difference between dubstep and techno?
you know besides the name? techno: uhnd chik uhnd chik uhnd chik uhnd chik dubstep: BOOM Chik.. Boom Boom Boom Chik.. PEOOOWWwwww BOOM BOWowoWOWoWOWow zipzipzipzipzipwoowooowoow EEEEEeeeeeerrr BOOM BOOM BOOM Splat! |
|
|
Joined: 02 Mar 2006 | Posts: 2522 | Location: Kansas
|
|
 |
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 6:38 am
The_Paronomasial_Mattoid wrote: Saellys wrote: Nowhere Man wrote: Way to ruin it, back to the drawing board for them. I prefer just the band performing in an intersting area to ones with a story the band had nothing to do with writing, where they make the musicians try to act. There's more of a chance of things going badly. I think Sherri did a nice job in the Telescope Eyes vid though. I've enjoyed all their videos so far and am looking forward to a new one. If I wanted to see the band perform the song, I'd watch a live video. Videos with a concept can go terribly wrong if a) the action onscreen is 100% verbatim to what's being sung at that moment a la "Friday," or b) the plot-heavy video relies on nonexistent acting skills from band members. Previous Eisley videos have proven that the Duprees can hold their own in a three minute film. gundamit wrote: Saellys wrote: The most likely scenario is that they'll spend a crap ton of money making a video that will be seen a few thousand times in total. Nah. I don't believe Eisley or their label have a "crap ton" of money to drop on a video. ... Given the questionable value of videos to bands (except for the biggest stars) I'm pretty sure we'll see mostly low budget/low concept videos from bands if they bother at all. The majority of band videos will come from the fan base. A lot of "live" low fi phone videos sure. But some creative fans will no doubt come up with some potentially viral stuff that'll help push the band along. Anyone like that here? My "they" referred to bands in general who make videos. Just off the top of my head, Someone Still Loves You Boris Yeltsin paid $9000 for the "Think I Wanna Die" video, which got posted on a couple indie music news aggregator sites, and that's about it. 214,000 views in the last three years. Money well spent? I doubt they think of it that way, but I'm sure they have fond memories of a weekend spent freezing in pools and breaking Will's hand. Now they make no-budget videos with local filmmakers that are of equivalent quality and considerably more entertaining (though a lot less pretty without the Dupree girls). Eisley probably don't have that kind of cash floating around, but EVR might be able to front it. I'd much prefer that they spend whatever their budget is on the same crew that did the "Invasion" promo. That way they already know the product will be decent. And speaking of videos contributed by the fans... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6F4vfCxVEHY I can't believe this hasn't been removed yet. A lot of the reason SSLYBY doesn't spend that much now is because they, pretty much, have to pay for most of their stuff themselves. Jeremy Larson and I were talking about that. Their label makes them pay for their own manager and/or publicist, along with a few other things, I believe. So I'm not surprised that they don't make crazy expensive videos if they're label isn't shelling out the money for them to. That's kind of the label's job and they're not really doing it. My impression of their contract with Polyvinyl (and I could be completely off about this, as I've never asked any band members about it) is that it's more P&D than anything else, and that's to their advantage in that it keeps them mostly out of debt. Even if the label did pay for their music videos, the band would end up having to pay it back at some point. I know they use a separate company for booking tours, and that seems to be going pretty well--they're usually in Springfield for a month or two at a time before they hit the road again. Whatever their arrangement with Polyvinyl is, I've never heard them speak an ill word about it, and none of them need day jobs to survive at this point, so I guess it's working out for them. _________________ INTELLECT AND ROMANCE OVER BRUTE FORCE AND CYNICISM Smokemonster |
|
|
Joined: 24 Sep 2003 | Posts: 14510 | Location: Alone on an airplane, fallin' asleep against the windowpane...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 6:45 am
^Ah, cool. Jeremy didn't say if they weren't happy with their deal or not, he just expressed that he'd be very unhappy with that arrangement unless he got a huge advancement. However, he's a "no label" kind of guy, as am I. I don't see much of a need for them for myself. If I can continue to make music without a label, then I will until I no longer am able to, which, seems to be Jeremy's position, as well. Kind of why I think we'll work pretty well together. I forgot how much I like SSLYBY. I need to listen to them a lot more than I have been. So good. _________________ cynlovescandy wrote: kulvir wrote: I bet R. Kelly approves of peeing in the shower. The world is R. Kelly's shower. It's a golden world. Nowhere Man wrote: mr pine wrote: is there a difference between dubstep and techno?
you know besides the name? techno: uhnd chik uhnd chik uhnd chik uhnd chik dubstep: BOOM Chik.. Boom Boom Boom Chik.. PEOOOWWwwww BOOM BOWowoWOWoWOWow zipzipzipzipzipwoowooowoow EEEEEeeeeeerrr BOOM BOOM BOOM Splat! |
|
|
Joined: 02 Mar 2006 | Posts: 2522 | Location: Kansas
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 6:49 am
Yeah, part of me wishes SSLYBY didn't sign so early. Polyvinyl gave them a ton of money to re-record Broom, which was already perfect and which had been out for the better part of a year and made it fairly high on the CMJ charts, so instead they had it remastered and kept the extra money. 
I, too, am staunchly against labels. I admire Jeremy's self-branding and ability to market himself in ways that merge conventional promotional techniques (DVDs, for instance) with unconventional (free shows). _________________ INTELLECT AND ROMANCE OVER BRUTE FORCE AND CYNICISM Smokemonster |
|
|
Joined: 24 Sep 2003 | Posts: 14510 | Location: Alone on an airplane, fallin' asleep against the windowpane...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 6:51 am
I had a chat with one of the guys who runs Polyvinyl a few years ago. He told me that their philosophy is: 1. We won't sign bands that will not tour nationally for a certain number of months. 2. We won't sign bands that will not play live or do promotional things. 3. The label exists to support the band, but in some areas the band must be able to support themselves. 4. Extracurricular things such as videos will be considered only after the costs have been recouped. All very fair, reasonable rules, if you ask me. _________________ "Die Sonne scheint noch" -- Sophie Scholl <3 <3 <3 |
|
|
Joined: 22 Jun 2004 | Posts: 535 | Location: texas is the reason
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 7:06 am
mister_joseph wrote: I had a chat with one of the guys who runs Polyvinyl a few years ago.
He told me that their philosophy is: 1. We won't sign bands that will not tour nationally for a certain number of months. 2. We won't sign bands that will not play live or do promotional things. 3. The label exists to support the band, but in some areas the band must be able to support themselves. 4. Extracurricular things such as videos will be considered only after the costs have been recouped. All very fair, reasonable rules, if you ask me. Sounds like Polyvinyl is run by a bunch of sensible folks who understand how volatile the industry is and don't want to drag their artists with them if they go under. Very cool. _________________ INTELLECT AND ROMANCE OVER BRUTE FORCE AND CYNICISM Smokemonster |
|
|
Joined: 24 Sep 2003 | Posts: 14510 | Location: Alone on an airplane, fallin' asleep against the windowpane...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 10:04 am
Congratulations wrote: I still think they should have made the Sci-Fi/flying saucer video that WB wanted to produce. But maybe that's just me. At least we have this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cal6cBKOG7E _________________ Taylor | @thbrogan http://inconnumag.com |
|
|
Joined: 19 Nov 2009 | Posts: 511 | Location: Chicago / DC
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 12:59 pm
marshkingsdaughter wrote: Congratulations wrote: I still think they should have made the Sci-Fi/flying saucer video that WB wanted to produce. But maybe that's just me. At least we have this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cal6cBKOG7E Hahaha, wow! That's fantastic. I love it. 
|
|
|
Joined: 31 Dec 2007 | Posts: 335 | Location: Northern Virginia
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 1:11 pm
Saellys wrote: Nowhere Man wrote: Way to ruin it, back to the drawing board for them. I prefer just the band performing in an intersting area to ones with a story the band had nothing to do with writing, where they make the musicians try to act. There's more of a chance of things going badly. I think Sherri did a nice job in the Telescope Eyes vid though. I've enjoyed all their videos so far and am looking forward to a new one. If I wanted to see the band perform the song, I'd watch a live video. Videos with a concept can go terribly wrong if a) the action onscreen is 100% verbatim to what's being sung at that moment a la "Friday," or b) the plot-heavy video relies on nonexistent acting skills from band members. Previous Eisley videos have proven that the Duprees can hold their own in a three minute film. But live videos usually have poor sound and fuzzy pictures. A nice clear video of them playing would be a pretty good video I think. Anyway on second thought, I do like concept videos and agree Eisley has done fine in them. I guess I was thinking from the viewpoint of the arists and how weird doing videos must be. I think somebody said (maybe someone from Eisley even?) something like "You spend a long time writing and making an album with songs that stand on their own merits. Then you're acting in a hastily made video that's someone else's vision and interpretation of your song without having much input and you're going to be associated with it forever." _________________ 
we're really not alone, we have each other |
|
|
Joined: 13 Jan 2007 | Posts: 2600 | Location: sitting in his nowhere land, TX
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Laughing City Forum Index -> eisleyBlog -> They're shooting a video!
Page 2 of 6 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
|
|
All times are GMT - 12 Hours
|
|
