You Tube videos: Performance or Visuals with Stories?

[Krakit]

Which is preferable, videos of the musicians playing their instruments or more conventional MTV type videos with stories and interesting visual effects? 

 

Of course hybrids exist, but if you had to pick one lane over the other which do people enjoy watching more? 

 

 

[johnchop]

Unless the performance involves some flashy technical execution, watching musicians play simple parts is boring af.  I don’t care how hot they are. 😂

Music is not a visual medium, so I’d much prefer complementary visuals.

[Docbop]

Always prefer watching the musicians play but I am a Jazz cat so it always about the performer and their performance.    If it's some Pop, Rock, et al stuff then visuals might get me to watch/listen it. 

[Montunoman 2]

I’d rather players playing, even ‘boring’ parts, but I’m a musician, so im biased. 

[El Lobo]

I imagine that it depends on the audience, and on which audience you want to appeal to. Musicians probably are most interested in seeing other musicians play and are also looking at their gear and other aspects of the video that are part of the music and video production. Audiences who like to listen to music probably are much more interested in good visuals, regardless of whether there are musicians in the video. Then there's audiences who want to see their pop stars and celebrities and don't care at all what they're doing in the video. 

[MathOfInsects]

More and more, given the option, I just choose the lyric video.

[Docbop]

I came up in the 60's when going to hear music was all about the bands and listening to the music for even non-musicians.    Some bands dressed in the styles of the day but many were just in jeans and some kind of shirt.   The gear was just stacked on stage and basic house lighting nothing fancy.  I saw Elton John back then at the Forum and even his band  was nicely dressed but just musicians on stage playing.  Basically it was just about going to hear a concert, but all that got screwed up,  oops sorry changed in the 70's and some big name band became about the "Show"  and prop's,  effects lighting, fancy outfits and all went down from there.  More and more about the show until concerts got so expensive they needed sponsors to underwrite the cost of a tour.   It's everything is a Las Vegas show that the band is onstage instead of the pit.   

 

The Yes tour I crewed on in 1975 we had four 40' semi's to haul all the gear, lighting, PA,  repair booth for prop's and merch'.   Four semi's and less than one was band gear for both Yes and the opening act Ace.   Today is even more insane with computer controlled lights and effects,  off stage musicians, MIDI controlled setting changes, backing tracks, even audience tracks.    Yes even all that applause between songs gets prompted and filled with clap tracks.   How many of today's stars would you still like if they just appeared like my day with just a band on stage, house lights,  and basic PA rig, stripped down to just the naked talent.    Get the focus back on the music.  

 

Okay coffee is ready I'll put my soapbox away.   

[johnchop]

Video of a performance is not the same as live performance. The videographer decides what to focus on. 
 

If there’s a story to be told with the music + visuals, let’s see that. If the performance is particularly emotive or can be filmed in an engaging way, show that.

 

If it’s some guy slouched over an Xkey and Nanopad triggering Eurorack modules, no one wants to see that… right? I mean, whatever blows your skirt up 😂

[RABid]

There may be 2 MTV type videos that I find memorable. I'm finding lots of good concert footage on YouTube that I prefer on staged videos.

[Krakit]

I will say that I enjoy both types of video experiences, BUT (very big but there) when my favorite artists have videos I would much rather see them just play without anything goofy going on. 

 

 

[jazzpiano88]

Never got into the MTV aspect of music.   Watching a video of performance is infinitely more enjoyable, if it's real.

I don't understand the guys complaining about being captive to the performance videographer, as if being stuck in a fixed seat at a concert isn't usually just as bad or worse.

 

I think Pat Metheny has purged all of the PMG soft video MTV versions off YouTube, which speaks for itself.

 

 

[o0Ampy0o]

What did the OP mean by "stories" it sounds like a documentary, the making of or behind the scenes sort of thing.

 

If you mean something touching upon documentary, not always but sometimes those can be interesting.

 

If you mean a stage show, I love the lighting of Genesis live shows and Pink Floyd's lights and props but when Alice Cooper started the Welcome To My Nightmare thing it diluted his appeal with soft Broadway BS. Elton John's glasses? Passable. EJ in the Donald Duck suit? Nope.

 

If you mean a visual narrative tacked onto the music as in a music video on MTV I hated those. Nothing worse than lip syncing in any context. And some people were better at it than others, it could be bad to terrible (Journey comes to mind as The Worst at it). However I appreciated Michael Jackson's tight choreography. Usually if it wasn't annoying it was no more interesting than those light patterns triggered by music or a screen saver.

 

Generally I prefer a live performance exhibiting authentic musicianship. If it is all staged for the cameras with audience shots that doesn't count. Some audience cell phone videos have been better than many commercially filmed and released videos.

[Krakit]

7 hours ago, Montunoman 2 said:

I’d rather players playing, even ‘boring’ parts, but I’m a musician, so im biased. 

I think the above probably has as much to do with one's preferences in this regard as anything. If I submit the same question to a forum of non musical lovers of music I might expect a completely different response. 

[Mighty Motif Max]

I generally prefer to see the band. I get more out of the music that way than I do from a music video with a storyline. You can get an idea of how the musicians react to their own music as well. Although there are definitely some neat music videos out there.

[GovernorSilver]

I usually click play on the video, then switch to another tab, honestly.

 

I'm only after the music itself, and prefer to read the news, forum posts, Instagram, whatever while the music is playing.

[Cliffk]

If it’s a musician and/or singer, I’d rather watch them doing their thing. If you can, have multiple cameras at various distance and angles - surprising how this improves things.

No offence to any DJs here, but one thing I cringe at are DJs ‘performing’ - all I ever see is cliched 80s hand waving interspersed with sporadic dives at the turntable to scratch along with an intro/outro.

[nursers]

Both:

 

Exhibit A:

 

 

Exhibit B:

 

 

[Outkaster]

It depends on what I want to find out.

[Theo Verelst]

Music videos can be cool, but there's a big gap between a hobby or phone cam "getting" this great performance and a ton of money with a director of photography, movie cams for promoting pop song so and so.

 

I like something artistic, I' not sure most people do.

 

T

[KuruPrionz]

Mixed bag here, I've seen way too many live action videos where the camera is not aimed at the player who is currently interesting, or the angle is poor. 

Most of these are probably cell phone productions, a good live video would have multiple cameras so video clips that document what's going on are edited into the final product. 

 

On the other hand, a great production story like Lazarus by David Bowie speaks for itself, much more effective than a live performance. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-JqH1M4Ya8

[HSS]

This is still my favorite music video.  It ain't got scantily clad hotties, fancy CGI graphics, witty humor, a complex "deep" story, etc., but damn it hits me upside the head me with its raw emotions, camera angles, and even the cig smoke. 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pui2zoH2VlI