It got me thinking when I hadn't watched the music video channels for a while how many music videos I had never watched and yet enjoyed the songs on the radio and on MP3's.
For me chart hits can be the soundtrack to your life and you associate them with particular places and people, the memories almost become the music video and often what you see on the video to a song doesn't particularly add anything to the experience. There's always some classic videos however but the primary attraction here is music, it makes you wonder how many artists think of the now obligatory video as a secondary nuiscance and just something they have to do and agree to.
Is it actually possible to have a chart hit that just doesn't have a video?

I also think a lot of music videos could be a lot greater than they are, instead of just relying on a bunch of sexually suggestive dancing girls to carry the whole thing. It kind of makes you feel like a bit of a schmuck to be watching the video, I'm not a prude in any way but it just comes across as naff as if that's the only thing that they could think ever that they think could ever get people to be interested in the video.
REM's Everybody Hurts video was a good example of a great idea to accompany a song

They cost a lot of money. This is why you see cheap shit all the time, and only the big acts have decent videos (in terms of production, at least).

I believe it depends on the contract.

Some acts have to pay for the video themselves whereas others will be paid for by the label.

A good video isn't necessary but it helps, especially in the digital age where people can access the video whenever they want to online.

I think it helps to sell the song. I very rarely listen to the radio but I do watch music channels regularly, and this can help introduce you to new songs etc. which then increases their sales. I suppose it just reaches the audience which doesn't necessarily listen to the radio.

Videos definitely do introduce non-fans to an artist. For example, this video from OK Go! has been viewed over 15 million times. Their other videos haven't surpassed 4 million.

I don't like the song but the video is well done so it was promotion enough to get me to listen to the song a few times. In fact, the band perform pretty poorly in terms of selling records!

In some ways I think a music video can destroy the innocence of a song where you use your own imagination to remember people, places and events where you heard it etc but I can certainly see what use they are getting to the audience that just doesn't listen to radio and they get across to a substantial audience that is hooked into sites like Youtube.
But whatever the content of music videos, it must be the prime motivation of many artists to make music and it could very well be for some and I do emphasise for some that they are not as motivated to make a music video as they would be to make music tracks. In that case does a record label take it completely into their own hands to create a music video perhaps with very little input from the artist?

Music Videos as an artform are on their way back, e.g. Rihanna, GaGa, Kanye

There are quite a few songs that are now hits before a video is made as people download a new track off an album before the record company have chance to make a video. Although most of the time a video is later made. Sometimes if the song was low in the chart it will then suddenly shoot up the charts but there are quite a few videos that come out as the song is falling and have no impact but I suppose it might help the song in other countries.

love the way you lie and californian gurls both hit no1 in america before the video premiered

Some artists rely on a good music video. I've noticed with Britney as an example. As soon as the music video has been released, her song has shot up. Same with Rihanna.

I don't think Alicia Keys had a proper video for her "empire part 2" song and that song was quite huge.

I don't think it's the same with rihanna

She does, it's just her sitting on a piano singing it though.

The Eminem / Rihanna single thats out just now, does that have a video?

There are some songs that probably wouldn't have got to number 1 if it wasn't for the video. Telephone being one of them.

I do. Hard and Rude boy for instance shot up when the video came out. I remember Rehab being a slow riser and then the video came out and it rose and rose. Te amo rose up the Uk chart when it's video came out.

3 hit number one weeks before a video was released, so not really.

I don't see the point in this thread, all singles have a music video in one form or another, it's been like that since the 80s

Yeah, but that's not necessairily because of a 'video' because a lot of people don't listen to the radio so music channels are their only exposure to new music.

I wouldn't call that a proper video. Alicia probably just performed the song live and, when it was suggested as a single, she just decided to use that recorded footage as the video rather than shooting a new one.

Gnarls Berkley's "Crazy" was #1 in the UK for a week or two before the video came out. The TV music stations had to play some temporary video featuring lots of flowery images and some of the lyrics on screen.

If we are talking about OK Go! a much better example would be the infamous Here it Goes Again video with over 50 million views and many parodies including The Simpsons and Big Brother.

I think since the 80's its been near impossible to have a sustained pop career without good videos.

That said, away from pop its pretty much irrelevant.

Of course but it pushed it which is what i am explaining. Why are we debating over this anyway? Stupid

I did think that one had more, but in the list when I searched it only had 4 million. I found the 50+ million one now, though.

However, OK Go! don't seem to do too well with selling records. None of their singles or albums have been a particular success in the US (where they are from) or worldwide.

I guess in this case their music videos are better than the songs.

Its all down to genre.

As far as "indie" goes, the video isn't really a selling point, its the music. It was a good video but it isn't really going to make an impact on whether the target audience will acctualy buy the CD. Similarly I don't think I've ever seen a strokes video or a Libertines video, but they were still successfull bands. The same could be said with most of the bands on my i pod.

However try launching a new boy band with no video (or even a poor video). It would be impossible.

With a boy band, and pop generally the visual "image" element is at least as important as the song itself.

It depends even within genres, but I find that with the more indie artists, they tend to have more thought out videos (by indie I don't mean Oasis clones and skinny tie wearing bands!)

Look at Bjork as a prime example. Her videos are almost always of high quality, innovative and very creative. She doesn't need to do that because her singles sell nothing but she continues to make videos even after the album has fallen off the sales shelves.

Even with low budgets some smaller artists make great videos (OK Go! being a good example here).

Some acts definitely need videos and like you said, boy bands almost definitely do. They need to appeal to teenage girls who may not normally listen to the radio but will gladly browse YouTube and click on a video with "hot" (usually camp with straightened hair and Topman clothes) men.

The Eminem/Rihanna video has just started to be shown in the UK.

Pop singles do but not all singles.

Pearl Jam refused to release any music vids for 6yrs after their initial success and since then its been fairly sporadic until lately.


Both The Strokes and Libertines have done vids.