'What Have You Done?'

[Jayson Crothers]

Alessandro, if you believe those compositions put the artist's mouth too low in the frame or are otherwise "wrong", I'm curious if you could post examples of your own work that show what you feel would be more appropriate. This isn't a jab at you, it's a genuine curiosity on my behalf because I think the framing looks perfectly fine.

[Alessandro Machi]

Alessandro, if you believe those compositions put the artist's mouth too low in the frame or are otherwise "wrong", I'm curious if you could post examples of your own work that show what you feel would be more appropriate. This isn't a jab at you, it's a genuine curiosity on my behalf because I think the framing looks perfectly fine.

 

Fair question.

 

I lit, framed and operated the entire DVD extras interview section for "The Spirit of Comedy", it's a DVD release and still available online.

[ryan_bennett]

I think they look fantastic and really beautifully lit. I would think you were crazy if you didn't have close intimate shots that the atmosphere suggests. I like CUs like this and have used a few for music videos, but I'm sure there's probably some others that will hate them and others that would love them, so I don't think there's any use of making fun of any one person, just wouldn't ever think about the jaw being too low though.

[ryan_bennett]

Okay now I fully read the thread, saw all the posts watched both videos. First, the stills naturally much better when watching in motion. Secondly, Alessandro if you think those frames are bad and the jaw too low, watch the other video that replaced this one.

 

The other one didn't have the cinematic flair, the fantasy to it. It was just high contrast bodies, some standard camera shake when the singer really gets going, ya they clearly made the wrong mistake. Bigger is better in my opinion and you had a whole club/concert vs. a hotel room with them singing, it was very standard but they must be thinking about the band's image but why did they approve of it in the first off? You need to get back at them, somehow. I really enjoyed the whole look of the video, really would enjoy more of your cinematography/videography - whatever.

 

Going back to Buick there, ya the "fuzziness" is called gain or bumping up the brightness/contrast in video causes it. Like said before, you light a room very bright but what matters is how you EXPOSE it for the look, so many people don't even realize that that I know. Look up some books and read about exposing and using a light meter you'll learn a lot and help you with your super 8 and your future.

[Alessandro Machi]

Just to clarify, the close-up is not off that much. I would say the temptation to get a little closer is probably greater as it helps fill the frame with the singer a bit more. (and yes, that is my sneaky way of saying that 16 X 9 close-ups are probably more difficult to frame than a 4 x 3 close-up.)

[Alessandro Machi]

I watched both videos. I watched Stuarts first and I then I took a guess as to what the second video might look like before I actually looked at it.

 

It's probably a razor thin line for rock groups to jockey between "over the top narcissm" and "kick ass performance" when they are featured in a music video. I had a feeling what I was going to see in the second video was more close-ups of the band members, and that's exactly what I saw.

 

It's kind of why Super-8 is still viable frankly. You just get in the face of the performer and then document their peformance.

 

Stuart's video did a tremendous job of constantly showing us a lot of imagery, backgrounds, more shots of the musicians from behind them that showed off the enchanting and overpowering backdrop. Perhaps there were more of those behind the performers type of shots than close ups of the band members, and that is dangerous territory to be in when dealing with band egos and marketing people.

 

Both Videos have a lot going for them frankly. Stuart's video automatically screams out this is a big time rock group, the kind you pay big time bucks to go see perform.

 

The You Tube video snorts out a "we're here and we're in your face, deal with it" type of message. It's a tougher, rawer message and perhaps one that may ring truer to the under 25 crowd.

 

I felt that Stuart's music video would be for the over 25 year old crowd while the You Tube music video verson was for the under 25 year old crowd. The irony is the over 25 year old crowd may have more dough to spend attending live shows, whereas the under 25 year old crowd is more likely to just "borrow" the music off of the internet or bootleg a video copy of a live show and pass that around.

 

On some levels the editing of the You Tube Video is better, primarily in how it shows off the performances of the band members. There are some very wild editing sequences that seem to actually enhance the music and the singers voices in the You Tube Version.

 

If Stuart's video has a flaw, it would be not enough of the performers in close-up at key points in the song, a couple shots of the lead singer come in just as she finishes singing and look slightly out of sync as well. The Male lead isn't as active as perhaps he should have been. I think those flaws are easily fixeable through editing however and certainly not enough of a reason to not want to use Stuart's version at all.

 

In this instance the marketers have made a big mistake by trying to make one music video that fits all audiences. The younger crowd will go for the You Tube Music video version, the older crowd, the ones with money, will go with Stuart's version. I'm not quite sure why the record label would want to exclude either demographic age group since many bands get pidgeon holed as being primarily for one age group. This band's music seems to have a more diverse crossover age appeal and should be exploited.

 

In my opinion by choosing one music video over the other, the record label has actually shortchanged the bands potential demographic appeal and marketing potentiall, they should be using both versions.

[Stuart Brereton]

There seems to be a misconception here that videos are made far from the oversight of the record label. Nothing could be further from the truth. Record labels vary in their desire to be involved, but none just 'let you get on with it'. In this particular instance, the video treatment and script was rewritten, I believe, 6 times, before they arrived at a finished script that was, by that point, about 75% the band's own work. On every day of the shoot, we had representatives of both European & US labels with us at all times, camped out by the monitor, giving the OK to every setup. I don't know exactly how many different cuts were done in the end, but one of the copies I have is cut no.8.

 

So, don't think for one second that the label wanted more CUs of the band. If they had, they'd be there. Essentially, in just about any video, the singer is the only important one, the rest are background.

 

The replacement video is a performance video, really. The version I shot was supposed to be a mini-movie. They're different creatures with different aims.

[Andy_Alderslade]

So, don't think for one second that the label wanted more CUs of the band. If they had, they'd be there. Essentially, in just about any video, the singer is the only important one, the rest are background.

 

The replacement video is a performance video, really. The version I shot was supposed to be a mini-movie. They're different creatures with different aims.

 

I was discussing with a friend your situation of another video suddenly coming out shortly after yours - he was saying its actually very common, seems these people don't really know what they want till they have both of them in front of them.

 

He's never heard of a record label refusing to pay someone like this before though - hopefully it won't become the norm.

[Alessandro Machi]

The replacement video is a performance video, really. The version I shot was supposed to be a mini-movie. They're different creatures with different aims.

 

Sure, that is what I am saying as well, and actually, the could use both for marketing.

 

If it were me I would be sending out invoice reminders on a weekly basis. Eventually, they will pay.

[Stuart Brereton]

They could use both for marketing.

 

 

Sure they could, but then they'd have to pay for both.

 

I strongly suspect that the witheld monies from the first video are what paid for the second.

[Guest Tim Partridge]

Yeah, the practice of replacement videos is nothing new (it even happened to Fincher in the 80s), but the refusal to pay, especially on THAT big budget level is beyond scary.

[Matthew Buick]

But, surely if the record label was there on site overseeing everything, and they were happy with it, then they should be obliged to pay for it? At least you part own a fantastic video. :lol:

[Alessandro Machi]

Sure they could, but then they'd have to pay for both.

 

Exactly. lol, they should use both because it will help them promote the band since the two videos will impact different demographics.

 

I would keep sending thorough, itemized bills once a week, and make sure to "age" the amount due to show how far overdue the payment is. If the record label does not offer any kind of response in writing, this puts you in a very sympathetic position with the court system later on. My opinion is, if there's one thing that ANY judge cannot stand, it's when one party does not respond to another parties claim even after several good faith attempts have been made in writing to get a response or payment well before any court action has been comtemplated. Judges do not like residing over cases where one side has made no attempt to resolve the problem, and they really don't like the side that made no effort to communicate.

 

If the record label does respond to your bills with a letter explaining why they won't pay, then you may have sufficient ammo to win in court because you probably will be able to prove wrong whatever their claim is, the key is to get them to claim SOMETHING if they don't plan on paying. The less the other side says ahead of time, the better for them, and judges know this. So if the record label is banking on winning in court, DON'T let them off the hook ahead of time by not sending billing on a weekly basis.

 

One defense the record label could come up with is they were only obligated to pay if they used the video??? (I don't recall if you addressed this issue in an earlier post, sorry) If that is the case, was this provision disclosed to every worker who agreed to work on the video? If not, the workers who were never notified are still owed money. The record label could then claim they informed the production company of this rule and it was up to the production company to notify anyone who worked on the production. In my opinion, that's about the only way the label could have wiggle room over this situation, so be careful that someone you trust doesn't get bribed to say that is what happened.

[Stuart Brereton]

I was not contracted by the record company, but by a production company. The legal situation regarding the video is complicated, but boils down to who has the most money - A giant multinational or a small production comapny who are already many £1000's in debt as a result of this. Bringing a court case costs money, and it's money that they don't have, even if they know they would win.

 

Anyway, I think we should probably steer clear of legal discussions, and stick to safer ground.

[Alessandro Machi]

I was not contracted by the record company, but by a production company. The legal situation regarding the video is complicated, but boils down to who has the most money - A giant multinational or a small production comapny who are already many £1000's in debt as a result of this. Bringing a court case costs money, and it's money that they don't have, even if they know they would win.

 

Anyway, I think we should probably steer clear of legal discussions, and stick to safer ground.

 

Are you saying we shouldn't give ideas out? If the production company has stopped sending bills to the record label, than the people that actually worked on the music video should band together and each send an invoice to the record label, and send it once a week until it's resolved.

 

In the U.S. small claims courts award up to a maximum of $5,000 per court case (it may have gone up). I assume Europe has at the very least some type of similar system. If each person who worked on the music video goes to small claims court as an individual, then huge legal bills are avoided but it's possible that most of the money can be collected if the production people are victorious in court.

 

It appears that if the crew stops asking for payment, they won't receive any compensation, so that doesn't seem to be a viable option unless there is something sinister to be feared.

[Stuart Brereton]

Are you saying we shouldn't give ideas out? If the production company has stopped sending bills to the record label, than the people that actually worked on the music video should band together and each send an invoice to the record label, and send it once a week until it's resolved.

 

I don't know whether this would be feasible in the U.S, but here it is not possible. No crew member has any recourse against the label because we were not hired by the label, and have no contract with the label. There is simply no case.

 

I'm not against giving ideas out, but none of us are lawyers....

[Alessandro Machi]

I don't know whether this would be feasible in the U.S, but here it is not possible. No crew member has any recourse against the label because we were not hired by the label, and have no contract with the label. There is simply no case.

 

I'm not against giving ideas out, but none of us are lawyers....

 

 

On the surface that sounds very logical and very valid. However....

 

In the United States, lets say a group of production people decided to individually sue against the Label because they did not pay the production company in small claims court. If the label gave the exact same reasoning in a reply to those who are billiing them as you state up above prior to the case going to court, how would the explanation really sound? It would sound kind of ridiculous, no?

 

 

If the label ignores the invoices and the case goes to court, the judge will then be more interested in the details because judges don't like it when disagreeing parties make little attempt to resolve their differences prior to going to court. At some point, the record label may have to state to the judge, "We told the production company what to do, but we never told their production people what to do...." since it appears that is their defense.

 

That seems like a weak defense, no?

 

The production people are also being put into a double jeopardy type of situation. If any point they had walked off the set due to overtime or some other issue, the record label could have used that as a reason not to pay for the music video. Instead the production people do as instructed, and STILL are not paid??? That is double jeopardy, no matter what they did, they did not get paid. In my opinion double jeopardy would cause the judge to look more favorably at the label having to pay even if they directly didn't order anything to be "done". And yet, the label did order what was to be done, even if they didn't tell each and every worker what to do.

 

If there is no form of small claims court in Europe, then maybe it will be cost prohibitive to do what I am suggesting, but I still don't see it as being harmful to send weekly billing to the record label to let them know that the issue has not been resolved.

 

Now I've thoroughly talked about this aspect of the story but I hope at the very least billing is still going out to the record label whether it's from the production company or the individual workers who worked on the production.