.png "Menu")
Footage
When deciding upon the structure of our music video, in regards to footage, we had three options open to us:
-
Lip synced, live performance
-
Narrative
-
A mixture of both options
All of which have their own advantages and disadvantages that we
considered.
Live performance:
Using live performance is a good way of introducing the band/
singer to their audience and aiding marketing and more people will know what
the band/ singer looks like. This is also a cheaper and quicker option as, in
theory, no props are needed, only the band/ singer and their instruments.
However, there is the issue of timing the lip syncing correctly and the playing
of any instruments to the recorded song. Failure to have the band/ singer
playing/ singing in unison can make the video look unprofessional and rushed.
Narrative:
The use of narrative in a music video can help convey the
intentions behind the lyrics and make the song more memorable by bring the
story to life and creating a more dynamic video. However, it can mean that the
song is more linked to the story than the band/ singer therefore making it a
bad choice in terms of marketing and advertisement; yet there are ways of
combating this via a strong presence on social media and possibly the band/
singer acting in the video (although the latter is not possible in this
instance).
A mixture of the both:
Combining both is the most common of choices, as it holds both the
positives of live performance and narrative. However, it could be argued that
the narrative being broken up in this manner negates the immersive nature of
purely narrative music videos.
Based on this, and our initial ideas, we decided the best method
of dividing our footage was to focus solely on a narrative. This is due to the
fact we wanted the video to be captivating and dramatic, and felt that the lack
of limitations that comes with fictional stories would allow for this, and
enable us to create an original music video.
0 comments: