Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2013 3:13:22 GMT -5
Hope it goes further in the charts than SBOTA (112)
|
|
|
Post by Master Wanker on Jul 22, 2013 3:33:16 GMT -5
Anybody else noticed the morning glory video vibe when Liam is in that corridor singing with the band?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2013 3:54:03 GMT -5
It's a decent video. Doesn't do much for the song, which is the point of a video, to make a good song sound better. That's certainly not true in any sense, be it a marketing one or an artistic one. In artistic terms, any band would be appalled to be told a video was intended to make the song sound better. Do you think that is what Bowie thinks when he makes his? And truly, how can a visual element make anything 'sound' better in any way whatsoever? In commercial terms, a video is a marketing tool, no more, no less. any of your own favourite videos and/or any of the most (and least) successful of all have been made as a marketing tool, no matter what kind of artistic blurb they come with. The point of a video has always been to allow the song to be given airtime on visual media - TV in the first place, starting in the late Sixties when bands such as the Beatles and Stone wouldn't go to a country to play on their music TV shows, then of course the big one with MTV throughout the 80s. No video was made to make a song 'sound' better, but was simply a promotional tool to bring them into the public consciousness and sell records/cds. Today the only really important outlet for a video is online - Psy, Robin Thicke, these videos weren't made with any artistic aims in mind, or to make the song 'sound better', there were made simply as promotional tools. The Beady Eye vid goes some way to prove what I've been saying here all along - this is a long term album campaign which is taking in very different approaches from the DGSS, and in many ways is harking back to the way Oasis were originally marketed. The fact that they've saved expenditure for the video for the third single is a clear indication of this, as well as the clever/cynical timing of it depending on your own viewpoint.
|
|
|
Post by mrmojorisen on Jul 22, 2013 5:53:18 GMT -5
Quality Video...
|
|
|
Post by bardes on Jul 22, 2013 6:25:05 GMT -5
Video is okay, but song is shitty.
|
|
|
Post by Bellboy on Jul 22, 2013 6:38:54 GMT -5
Best Beady Eye video by far. I got the Morning Glory video vibe. Also catholic undertones.
Btw At the very end is the blonde girl slightly preggers?! Maybe another one on the way Liam?! Haha
Top nipple.
|
|
|
Post by fabulousbakers on Jul 22, 2013 8:57:54 GMT -5
None of my youtube download programs will download the video for me - first time this has happened for me.
|
|
|
Post by frjdoasis on Jul 22, 2013 9:51:01 GMT -5
Video is okay, but song is shitty. The song is boring, that's the problem. It's repetitive, it should have had more variety in the second part.
|
|
|
Post by ricardogce on Jul 22, 2013 10:00:54 GMT -5
The song is a little too retro for its own good, but it's not "bad" per se. Just wishing they'd gone with "I'm Just Saying", which is still retro, but in a good way.
Love the video, though. A small budget can go a long way if you have a good creative team.
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Jul 22, 2013 10:17:00 GMT -5
It's a decent video. Doesn't do much for the song, which is the point of a video, to make a good song sound better. That's certainly not true in any sense, be it a marketing one or an artistic one. In artistic terms, any band would be appalled to be told a video was intended to make the song sound better. Do you think that is what Bowie thinks when he makes his? And truly, how can a visual element make anything 'sound' better in any way whatsoever? In commercial terms, a video is a marketing tool, no more, no less. any of your own favourite videos and/or any of the most (and least) successful of all have been made as a marketing tool, no matter what kind of artistic blurb they come with. The point of a video has always been to allow the song to be given airtime on visual media - TV in the first place, starting in the late Sixties when bands such as the Beatles and Stone wouldn't go to a country to play on their music TV shows, then of course the big one with MTV throughout the 80s. No video was made to make a song 'sound' better, but was simply a promotional tool to bring them into the public consciousness and sell records/cds. Today the only really important outlet for a video is online - Psy, Robin Thicke, these videos weren't made with any artistic aims in mind, or to make the song 'sound better', there were made simply as promotional tools. The Beady Eye vid goes some way to prove what I've been saying here all along - this is a long term album campaign which is taking in very different approaches from the DGSS, and in many ways is harking back to the way Oasis were originally marketed. The fact that they've saved expenditure for the video for the third single is a clear indication of this, as well as the clever/cynical timing of it depending on your own viewpoint. As you said, the point of a video is for promotional purposes, so to sell the song. Last time I checked, you don't sell a song by a reminding people that the song might just be shit. If you're trying to sell the song, then you're trying to sell either the image (such as Psy) or the greatness of the song. So to a point, aren't you trying to make the music appear to sound better? So in that instance, isn't that the point of a video?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2013 10:32:24 GMT -5
As you said, the point of a video is for promotional purposes, so to sell the song. Last time I checked, you don't sell a song by a reminding people that the song might just be shit. If you're trying to sell the song, then you're trying to sell either the image (such as Psy) or the greatness of the song. So to a point, aren't you trying to make the music appear to sound better? So in that instance, isn't that the point of a video? I think you're struggling here. 'to a point' no, a video is obviously not trying to 'make the music appear to sound better'. it is simply adding a visual element to the music. It can't have, and does not have, any impact whatsoever on how the music 'sounds', which was your original assertion. The point of a video is to bring the music (more specifically, the product that is for sale that contains the music) to the attention of people by using a visual medium. The whole 'last time I checked' angle when used in a reply always suggests to me that a poster is taking a bit of a superior tone, and is being a tad condescending. Obviously no one releases any product that they want people to think of as 'shit', so your point is neither here nor there really.
|
|
|
Post by liamg4e on Jul 22, 2013 10:41:02 GMT -5
Cool video. Probably the best from Beady Eye.
Coupled with the current tabloid headlines Liam is once again living up to the rock star image in every way and reminding us that he really is the last of a dying breed. Not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing, but at least he's looking cool again. It's almost like being back in the 90s.
Only the music was better then.
|
|
|
Post by theultimatewannabe on Jul 22, 2013 11:04:36 GMT -5
It's a decent video. Doesn't do much for the song, which is the point of a video, to make a good song sound better. That's certainly not true in any sense, be it a marketing one or an artistic one. In artistic terms, any band would be appalled to be told a video was intended to make the song sound better. Do you think that is what Bowie thinks when he makes his? And truly, how can a visual element make anything 'sound' better in any way whatsoever? In commercial terms, a video is a marketing tool, no more, no less. any of your own favourite videos and/or any of the most (and least) successful of all have been made as a marketing tool, no matter what kind of artistic blurb they come with. The point of a video has always been to allow the song to be given airtime on visual media - TV in the first place, starting in the late Sixties when bands such as the Beatles and Stone wouldn't go to a country to play on their music TV shows, then of course the big one with MTV throughout the 80s. No video was made to make a song 'sound' better, but was simply a promotional tool to bring them into the public consciousness and sell records/cds. Today the only really important outlet for a video is online - Psy, Robin Thicke, these videos weren't made with any artistic aims in mind, or to make the song 'sound better', there were made simply as promotional tools. I do not agree with the premise you set here. Of course visual elements can make a thing sound better. Just why would countless marketers choose music video as a means of promotion? Obviously because multisensory experiences are far superior to monosensory ones. Visuals don't make the song sound just better; it elevates the song in the listener's mind onto another level. After being exposed to whatever visual stimulus that happened to accompany a certain song, be it a music video, a live footage, or even an album cover, it is impossible for the listener to be reminded of the images that took him/her over when he understood the song as an exclusively auditory experience. A new image, vastly bettered by the new stimulus, replaces it forever. I remember the first time I've watched a clip of Oasis performing live. I was just getting into them and I had been finding Champagne Supernova to be a decent song. Then I saw Earl's Court and it suddenly became one of the most majestic songs I've ever heard in my life. I figure most of the people here would have had at least some kind of an enhancing visual experience like mine. It is the whole point of musicians doing gigs and releasing live DVDs. It is because the pure sensation of seeing the musician perform live, simply put, makes the audience feel differently and in a lot of cases better. Of course, the more sense involved the more memorable, as in the case of going to gigs when virtually every sense you can use is being used to its fullest extent, added with the sensation of interaction (which is technically not a sense but still strong enough for a person to inscribe it into his memories.) I think I strayed from my point a bit but I guess what I have claimed applies to good music videos as well. I do concede that music videos are rarely gamechangers; Psy was a striking exception but usually what determines success of a single is mainly capital, including social aspects like fame and media coverage. But music videos still affect the viewers a lot. Usually, they enhance the listening experience. Of course, when visual stimuli is pouring out from nearly everywhere around you, some of them could fail to evoke meaningful impressions, or even create hostility, due to them being negligible or somewhat comtemptible. So the point of contention should be whether the video was good enough for the viewer to create additional positive images (or offset formerly negative images) about the song or not, for you can't pretend you saw the video and nothing changed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2013 11:21:12 GMT -5
thanks for taking the time to make a considered reply. I do not agree with the premise you set here. Of course visual elements can make a thing sound better. Just why would countless marketers choose music video as a means of promotion? Obviously because multisensory experiences are far superior to monosensory ones. well, your conclusion there doesn't follow on from your intial premise. Why would people choose video as a means for promotion? many reasons. Obviosuly because mutlisensory expereiences are far superior to monsensory? Well, that isn't something that everyone would agree with and it isn't a 'cause and effect' follow on from why videos are amerketing tool. some people may well think that listening to music, perhaps with headphiones on and eyes shut, is a far superior way of enjoying music that being bombarded with a visaul image. It's a subjective matter, not something you can say 'is' better or worse. here you are basically saying that the visual element is more important than the sonic one, as it supercedes an auditory experience. Again, many people may diagree with you. Are you familiar with NLP? People have difference preferences when it comes to sensory bias - yours may well be visual as opposed to auditory or tactile and you are speaking from a subjective position. yes, but for many it will be the other way round - not seeing a band on video, but seeing them live, and then the record later acting as the superior medium to cement the experience. In fact, that is the history of recorded music and the music industry, selling people an auditory reminded of an event. I agree with you on the multisensory appeal of attending an event, which is why festivals now play such a major role, but your intial point is far from true. The whole point of musicans releasing DVDs in to make more money from a product cycle. Sorry to be cynical, but that's it. You are actually agreeing with me here. Of course they can enhance an experience, but they cannot 'make something sound better'. not strictly true. negative images can be far more powerful than positive, sadly.
|
|
|
Post by RUBIKON on Jul 22, 2013 11:34:01 GMT -5
I think everyone is missing the point with this single business. At the end of the day, NGHFB and BE will never have singles on Radio 1 and appeal to the mainstream again, they wont have a single in the Top 5 so why not make cool videos and try and get buzz out that way.
|
|
|
Post by gallagherbrother on Jul 22, 2013 12:43:50 GMT -5
WTF!!!
|
|
|
Post by GlastoEls on Jul 22, 2013 12:56:43 GMT -5
WTF!!! Legit LOL moment!
|
|
|
Post by Regi on Jul 22, 2013 13:11:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Stemot on Jul 22, 2013 13:21:50 GMT -5
Say what you want about Liam, but he has certainly become more playful since leaving Oasis with his image. First the Spacesuit and now a nun. Quite refreshing tbh.
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Jul 22, 2013 13:29:41 GMT -5
As you said, the point of a video is for promotional purposes, so to sell the song. Last time I checked, you don't sell a song by a reminding people that the song might just be shit. If you're trying to sell the song, then you're trying to sell either the image (such as Psy) or the greatness of the song. So to a point, aren't you trying to make the music appear to sound better? So in that instance, isn't that the point of a video? I think you're struggling here. 'to a point' no, a video is obviously not trying to 'make the music appear to sound better'. it is simply adding a visual element to the music. It can't have, and does not have, any impact whatsoever on how the music 'sounds', which was your original assertion. The point of a video is to bring the music (more specifically, the product that is for sale that contains the music) to the attention of people by using a visual medium. The whole 'last time I checked' angle when used in a reply always suggests to me that a poster is taking a bit of a superior tone, and is being a tad condescending. Obviously no one releases any product that they want people to think of as 'shit', so your point is neither here nor there really. I'm just going to concede this. As a person who studies English, I would say if I reread my post, that I wasn't being condescending. I would say the reason I'm "struggling" here is because I'm playing back on my heels a bit. It's because I'm being hesitant. Like when I concede to you opinion by saying "As you said" or by making my last point a question, instead of a statement, or by using your example of Psy. Those are the signs of someone conceding more than attacking or taking the high ground. That would be my opinion if that same paragraph were taken to me and I was asked to deconstruct it. In my opinion, that's not the sign of someone being condescending or looking down upon someone else. You should never admit this, but I read back my post a few times to make sure I wasn't stepping on any toes before I clicked the "create post", to make sure that I was respecting your opinion because you appear to be a person who definitely has intimate knowledge of how these things work. In my opinion, I was clearly being hesitant. But if you're first jump is to assume that I'm being condescending or looking down upon you, then you're farthest from the point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2013 13:40:40 GMT -5
ok no worries man I appreciate the clarification. it's all discussion and debate and opinion at the end of the day it's when attitude comes into it that it gets my goat so apologies if i misconstrued your intention
|
|
|
Post by bardes on Jul 22, 2013 13:49:49 GMT -5
This is brilliant. Liam, what a man.
|
|
|
Post by Pat Butcher on Jul 22, 2013 13:52:30 GMT -5
Shite video that goes nowhere, to an absolutely appalling song that goes equally nowhere.
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Jul 22, 2013 14:48:15 GMT -5
ok no worries man I appreciate the clarification. it's all discussion and debate and opinion at the end of the day it's when attitude comes into it that it gets my goat so apologies if i misconstrued your intention No problem man.
|
|
|
Post by allingoodtime on Jul 22, 2013 17:37:12 GMT -5
I'm liking this song more and more!
|
|