Could real music videos be any more badly edited?

[Kevmaster]

Best Music Video ever.

[Megamom]

It's really awful how artists these days can deal with it. The editors just slap on the scenes after the camera crew shoots the promotional video. Unless it's one-shot, the editors really do a bad job with editing nowadays.

All...except "Gorillaz"

[ZephyrStar]

All...except "Gorillaz"

Hells yes.

[Hiro The Dragon King]

I was wondering when someone was going to mention them. Too bad they're over. I miss them.

[JaddziaDax]

This is one of my favorite music videos.... this is another awesome concept.. and any man willing to do this is in my opinion :3

[xexyzl]

Its probably because real music videos have a very small budget, so they can't afford to cut away all but a second of a shot just to do some fancy shmancy quick cutting. They want to get their money's worth on what they just filmed; they don't want to shoot several hundred dollars worth of film and only end up using about 5 seconds of it.

As AMV editors, we have A LOT more footage to work with, from full length movies upwards to 600, 800, 1200 whatever minutes. We can afford to be wasteful.

[JaddziaDax]

tell that to [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mo ... sic_videos]these guys]/url]

granted not as large as a movie budget, but still enough to throw around.

[JaddziaDax]

tell that to these guys

granted not as large as a movie budget, but still enough to throw around.

[Emong]

"Real" music videos are not supposed to be impressing technically, imo. I guess the whole point of "sync" that goes there is supposed to be very invisible compared to the actual content. As AMV editors, we might pay special attention on the cutting, effects etc. whereas the actual goal of editing there was to make sure the viewer keeps his eyes on the story of the video (well, or the singer. Dammit, I once paid special attention on a Gwen Stefani video and noticed there was only one clip without Gwen in it >_>) The cutting is made so the viewer doesn't see it, so naturally there's often no beat sync simply because that's distracting the viewer. Sometimes I see flashes etc. but a casual viewer wouldn't pay attention to those either since they're made in a very invisible manner.

AMVs and original music videos are very different by their nature. The biggest difference is that amv editors use footage and music that already exist and remix them in a way that wasn't originally intended. AMVs are very "experimental" in their goals; we pay more attention on such things as sync and effects, combining pre-existing video and audio to create different moods etc. However, when you're making a 'normal' music video, you're actually creating the video and audio for the music video instead of using them as tools like AMV editors do.

So I wouldn't really judge them both by the same standards. We can't speak of acting, camera work, character designs etc. when reviewing an AMV (or well, we can but it's not for the editor to decide) and we can't speak of remix work when we talk about normal music videos. And it's really easier for an AMV editor because he simply isn't responsible for the sources he uses. Those aren't judged when we tell if his editing is good or not. The difference between reviewing normal music videos and reviewing AMVs is that you either directly review the source (as it was created for the music video itself in normal music videos' case) or the use of sources (in AMVs' case)

O.o

[JaddziaDax]

I donno I once saw a Rob Thomas video that made me want to watch the background more than him, but thats cause all the interesting bits were going on there O.o

I think it depends on the director.