Hillyan News - The News Of Your Planet

Oh, of course not, but I'm glad you said that so I can now elaborate.

Lyrics give songs an intent - or a flavour. And generally speaking, it's one I find hard to like because my over-active left brain chips-in; "but it's completely presumptuous to suggest that you'll love them forever, you might get bored of them, you might find out they RP or something," but that's besides the point. If you combine that flavour with the action or artistry or the cutscenes or the gameplay of a given game, you're assuming that the flavours match, and 99% of the time, they won't.

This ties into the reason why well known songs usually suck, as well. Their flavour is tailored to elicit a modern vibe, which you have to admit, will be somewhat jarring when placed over a video of middle earth or alien planets.

There is also just the fact that I hate Linkin Park.

Of course a well-known song can work (one of the many videos I was going to make that would have actually been good was this song by Muse, because the tone of the music was stealthy and ambient), but my point is that you have higher success rates if you explore outside of that.

Oh, and for the record, I watched 20 seconds of that "Double H Man for All Seasons" video and that's actually a perfect argument against using big music. I'd rather not think about whether or not Double H is a stallion in the sack. Furthermore, they tried to lipsync the singer with the character, but Double H does not sound like Robbie Williams, and it's only highlighting how much that song shouldn't be used. And when you try to force relevancy with the lyrics (night and day), it just makes it stand out when the lyrics don't match.

Denden's video was hilarious though.

I personally like Man for All Seasons by B-Gev, it's just a fun video. I don't think he tried to make it perfect, just funny, which is why it works. At least for me.

Besides, Dendens vid had some bad lip sync also, B-Gev did a better job I think :P But both video's are enjoyable. Besides, HH is a stallion in the S-A-C, and you know it :P

I think your point is a little off though, some songs can be interpreted differently. So some would fit in DomZ infested universe. Most of them don't, but there's plenty songs about revolutions, uprisings, etc. You have to be willing to see it.

And I hated Linkin Park for a while, but their new songs are quite enjoyable, I think.

Also, Muse rocks.

Nothing about the song is funny, and the tone of the video is completely submissive to the already worthless lyrics.. apparently we just don't see eye to eye on this.

Oh sure - hell, I can vouch for it. I just don't want to recall the painful memories.

:lol:... that's so fucking pretentious...

Come on. That's not how it works. Denden's video worked regardless of the lyrics or the failed lip syncing because the song fit the tone fit the video. It didn't need to be about VIVA LA REVOLUCION, nor did it need to draw faux comparisons with a few coincidental cutscenes (although he did needlessly do that as well). What was funny about it was about the amount of abuse Pey'j goes through in the space of the game, sweetly juxtaposed to the blusey folk music.

And arguing that "big" music can only elicit a "modern" vibe or destroys a mood isn't pretentious? ;)

Instrumentals can set a mood, but lyrics can tell a story. Trying to relate them to the world at hand is part of the challenge. An instrumental is just as easy to screw up, really--if someone watching a vid doesn't think the instrumental fits the mood, or finds it difficult to draw connections between it and the source material, it can be just as jarring to them as lyrics apparently are for you. There is no "superior" form because everyone has different opinions on what makes a good vid. Any form of "artistic" expression, be it a painting destined for a museum or some kid drawing pictures of their favorite superheros for the family fridge, must first and foremost please the artist. Arbitrary decisions about what's "good" from on high come last, if at all.

So yeah. Do something fun with your favorite music, and find new ways to enjoy it. Make it for you. :P

I love discussing with you, at least you give better argument than most nitwits on THE INTERWEBS.

Anywho, if you dislike the song, I can't help you. I do, though I think the chorus is lame. And B-Gev actually did more than trying lipsync and matching scenes. I especially like the part from 2:42 (which is instrumental, I'll give you that).
Also, a Man for All Seasons is a song about a secret agent (Johnny English theme), HH is secret agent, so I think it fits for that reason.

But I guess we have to agree to disagree there.

As for being pretentious, I don't think I being that. Some songs don't fit, some do, but I am willing to look for a connection I hadn't made myself, lyrics sometimes are the factor that makes the video fit the music IMO, but I know you won't agree. "Miracle" of the Foo Fighters reminds of BGE in a weird way, and I think it's because of the lyrics.

Here's something else:
Another vid by Denden
The mood fits of the piece fits the scene perfectly, although it's not a good MV since there's no cutting. As for the lyrics "Come, come, to me" have little to do with the scene.

However, if I'd have done that MV, I would have cut in some nice Pey'j and Jade moments. Maybe even the running scene at the end (where she's reunited with him). But that's just me.

First of all, I didn't say only. And second of all, no, of course it isn't pretentious. ;) You can argue with me on whether you agree with it and why or why not, but there's nothing phoney or insipid about the statement. And third of all, even if it was, how does that disprove my point?

Saying that "it's there if you look for it" is a hollow statement, since anything is there if you look for it, that doesn't make it clever or interesting or artistically/emotionally valuable, or even true. Ghosts can be "seen" in floating bits of dust caught by the light, it doesn't mean they're the restless spirits of our deceased ancestors.

Instruments in music set a backdrop or a canvas or a colour or a tone. They provide a pallet. You still have a huge variety of things that can be painted on top of that, that can be woven through that. Lyrics, on the other hand, are like an ink sketch. It's clear, you can see what it is. It's a wholly define shape. You can paint over it with something else, sure, and some of the colours will fit inside the lines, but it doesn't look like the damn sketch.

Must? They can, and that helps, but there's no "must" about it. If I want to please myself, I can eat a pack of crisps or masturbate or look in the mirror and tell myself I've a very pretty duck actually and don't listen to the voices, but none of that is stimulating any brain cells except for the most primative ones, nor are they stimulating anyone elses. Creativity can just be self-serving, if you really want to be that boring... but it can be self-serving and artistically relevant and all those other fancy college phrases as well, and that's just as valuable, if not moreso, since your intent may be to put that in the public domain and entertain or enlighten other people.

...


Evils:

It's not an MV, since it's just the scene with a worse piece of music and no dialogue. It doesn't communicate anything, nor does it make me care. What you're trying to say is that tone can be done poorly too. That's right, it can. But tone is nebulous; it's non-specific which make it less difficult to use. On the other hand, trying to find a portfolio of lyrics that make perfect sense in a video is like trying to thread a needle sitting on a washing machine.

And that's fine. You didn't make a music video about it. Back when I was a wee tyke, The Rasmus "In the Shadows" used to remind me of BG&E (three guesses), and I WAS going to make a video. It was why I started learning 3D modelling. In my head it would have been amazing, there was lightning and kung fu and all kinds of awesome, but it would have been a bad video.

God-damnit, I think I like that stupid song again, now. I'm still listening to it.

Pardon me, I need to start cutting.

Oeh, nice metaphors, I really liked the one about the palette. Although I wouldn't describe lyrics as ink lines, more as the (final) sketch lines, you know what you want, but there's no reason that a line you see on paper couldn't curve a little differently.

And I agree with your statement about artist liking their own work, which I cannot describe better than using this quote from my favourite artist, M.C. Escher:

Also, as a small insignificant artist myself, I tend to dislike a lot of my old works, which other peoples still like. I am sometimes not at all pleased with the end results, while others like it. So no, you don't have to like your own work, but it's part of who you are and were in the past.

Though I don't usually show others the stuff I don't like.

And yet, a hobbyist isn't necessarily trying to make "art." They may wish to share their work, but they may not be looking to stimulate.

Making blanket statements about "art" is kind of pointless, because every artist is an artist for slightly different reasons. The good Master of Ceremonies Escher (obviously a joke, in case we get into ad hominem over fan vids) may find that on that desert island they'd stop painting for lack of feedback, but if I stopped writing, I'd go nuts.

I may have overgeneralized, but one can't regulate taste, as they say. There's a difference between saying "I will not view/read this work because it is in a genre I dislike" and saying "This work is in a genre I dislike, therefore automatically sucks."

A hobbyist doesn't need to, because they get enjoyment out of the activity. Like I said, it can be self serving, but if you self-serve in public, you might expect people to criticise or critique, since it isn't making them happy and that's the cost of public exposure.

If you were to run around your house naked, that's fine, no biggie. Whatevs. But if you run naked down the street, you'd be a bit naive to accusingly glare back at people for looking at you.

This... okay. See, here's the thing. Read the comment again. You have made a blanket statement. I have not. Unless you're referring to reaper. Bah. Art is subjective, of course it is, but then most anything is subjective if you angle it just right. And that's reductive, since it removes the value. Value and beauty and relevance and all that stuff is largely defined by scrutiny and structure. There are many - an infinite number of different ways to make art, and all of them have logical levels of quality and appeal. But they also have limitations, and understanding those limitations is a part of the creative process. Some douchebag once said that an absence of limitations leads to something bad or whatever.

...that sentence is the best thing I have ever written. This is it; it's not going to get better than that.

Anyway. Yes, it is possible to create music videos using lyrics and have them be awesome, but it's also possible to train you dog to bark "happy birthday" or "I love you," and yeah, it kinda sounds like he's saying it but there are better ways of saying happy birthday and there are other things your dog can do better.

Personally, I only ever do things creatively that make me happy, perhaps to an unhealthy degree (I get bored with projects quickly), but I only show things to the public that I'm happy with. Then again, this is why I have one picture on my dA account. I don't even like it that much.

And yet, you seem to be implying that all "public" art must meet some arbitrary level of quality (determined by whom?), or that doing something you enjoy isn't stimulating, or that making music videos with lyrics isn't stimulating, or something I'm not even sure of anymore. All of those seem like blanket statements to me. I admit to being a bit too absoletist with the "must" statement, but there's blankets to spare, it seems.

If you trained your dog to bark Happy Birthday, who's to say that you're doing it to wish someone an actual happy birthday? Perhaps you are, but maybe they're a dog lover, in which case, it's not necessarily a bad idea. Or perhaps that friend needs a good laugh. Or maybe you're trying to win a pet trick contest. Or maybe you're just doing it for fun. There could be any number of reasons for doing something like that.

It's all well and good to say "It's public, therefore free to critique," but no amount of majority and analysis and scrutiny will make any piece of art universally appealing, nor will it make it objectively good. You can make technical comments about an artist's use of shading in a realistic piece, or critique about their use of ill-met colors in a more cartoony piece, but you cannot write them off as automatically "bad" because, say, they chose to make a picture of a horse. You might not want to look at the picture because you don't like horses, but you cannot dismiss the picture on subject matter alone.

Analysis itself lends even more depth to seemingly "rigid" things. An ink sketch might be difficult to change, but you can still look at the drawing itself, draw inferences from it (the artist's feelings, their intent, state of mind, themes, patterns, et cetra), analyze its artistic themes, find other pictures that compliment it for a gallery show, Photoshop it, draw another picture in response, etc. There's all kinds of ways to play with a piece of art without changing the initial work, and enhance one's understanding of the original. A piece of art may be immutable, but people's emotional/intellectual responses to it, and interpretations of it, aren't. The Mona Lisa will always look like the Mona Lisa no matter how many times one stares at it, but everyone's going to have a different idea of what she looks so damn smug about.

My ultimate point is: You obviously feel very strongly about what is and isn't appropriate for fan vids, but whether or not you personally enjoy something based on factors X, Y, and Z does not for a full critique make--there's more to making a vid good than "find music that doesn't suck." Especially since, y'know, musical taste isn't universal.

I think this is all ultimately a perfectionist vs. not-perfectionist kind of thing, and/or one about canon. My thoughts at their core being, fandoms are kind of a bad place to go looking for things that are perfect or adhere religiously to "canon."

A musical critic has the right to critique a band playing a free show, but the band has a right to suck. The critic has a right to berate them for sucking, but the band also has the right to play louder. :P

I don't give a shit about 'rights' or 'objectivity'. Everyone, theorhetially, has the right to do whatever the want, that is established through the fact that I didn't try to deny that at any point. But the act of public display implies that the people experiencing it are, in some way, important. Whether that be financial importance or aritstic importance or making the band feel good or just having a bunch of people to crowd surf on, the difference between perfoming in a band and playing in a garage is that you're accountable for sucking when you're on stage.

Maybe you can, but that's not under debate. Again, I never mentioned that. I hate Linkin Park, but I didn't critique the video for it. I just said that I hate Linkin Park. I didn't used to, which is partly why I know better.

1. Look at the drawing itself - that's reading the lyrics
2. Draw inferences from it - that's thinking about the lyrics
3. Find other pictures that compliment it - that's devising a theory (or a book of famous song quotes)
4. Photoshop it - that's changing the lyrics
5. Draw a response - that's... influence? I doesn't have anything to do with the original, anyway.

Lyrics in a recorded song are set. You can't toy with them or change them, they are solid and unmoving. They mean something that was designed for that song by that band. Yes, you can look at it and um and ah about what it could mean, but it is all mental gymnastics, no more valuable than imagining all the characters in a film as chickens, or reading a war book and replacing the word 'gun' with 'flower'.

Again, maybe it does, but it isn't under debate...

I looked at the clock and it is 4:20am. Feel free to respond if you like, i'll probably say more rubbish tomorrow when I'm not shattered and dragging the remnants of my argument through the muddy parts of my brain without a browser dictionary.

Intentional? :huh:

I will reply to this discussion later, but I love it already (skimming through it as far as I have). As long as both parties are aware that this is a discussion, no personal attack.

Well, actually I know Phil/Duck is not easily offended, I could call him a belching vagina fart which reeks of an orc pit and he still wouldn't care. Besides, he's much better at those sort of insults than I am. And he's probably going to make a snarky response to all that I just typed.

PHIL OR DUCK, ONE OR THE FUCKING OTHER.

Sup.

Oh, the accurate term is "queef".

PHIL OR DUCK, ONE OR THE FUCKING OTHER.

Sup.

Oh, the accurate term is "queef".

Well... I donno which you prefer :unsure: (I guess Duck, since you changed it to that from Phil)

I just think it's easier to call you Duck/Phil, since not everyone here knows you're Phil. Or Dan for that matter. Thus I call you Phil, for it's what I'm used to and I call you Duck since it's your current name, and people know who I mean. Solution: I call you Duck/Phil or Phil/Duck or Phil the Duck or Phil the Ugly Duck or Ugly Phil the Duck or Ugly Phil the Ugly Duck.

If it's my choice, and there are no (relatively speaking) newbies around, I shall refer to you as Phil.

And I know it's "queef", I saw the Southpark episode (admittedly, that is the reason I know), but I think "vaginal fart" sounds funnier.