Carol Vernallis

Carol Vernallis says the camera in music video seems to mimic the way we view sonic space... do you agree? Do you think we are conditioned by music video to read sonic space in particular ways?

In music video the camera does mimic the way we view sonic space, as it cuts quick and fast within the space thats available, and by doing so it creates a lot of energy and excitement. By creating these feelings the music video is indeed conditioning us to view sonic space in a particluar way.

She suggests that the jumping camera focus is like the camera in place of our eyes, doing what we do when we listen. However, this is predefined for us by the Director - we have even less choice to look away/outside of the Director's choice than we do in film - do you agree?

Yes this is true, music video does a lot more to focus on certain aspects within the realm you are viewing. There is also a lot more happening, too much for us to manage it all discarding the use of imagination, and therefore the director predefines it for us. This total disgregard for the imagination of the viewer is embodied in the fact that the camera is indeed in the place of our eyes and we are being shown what to look at. In this sense we have much less choice than in film, but film is a different concept all together trying to achieve different things.

She says music video is more like listening than viewing - do you agree?

I disagree, the concept of a music video is for the visuals to work in harmony with the music and to either illustrate, amplify or contradict the song. Although, it is important to note that the visuals are helping us with the listening, as it shows you what to tune your ear into such as the vocals, guitar, bass, drums etc. If there was a shot of a guitar player playing a sick riff then you would automatically tune your ear into what he's playing while the rest of it becomes background. Therefore, the listening in my mind is equal to the viewing, niether is more important, the point is they work together.

"We compensate imaginatively for what we do not see in the frame" - Agreed?

I agree, there is an element of imagination used to compensate for what you cannot see because when you are being shown a shot of a guitar player you automatically know without even thinking that the drummer is still doing his part. Music video is a very unpredictable style of media and this is where the imagination comes in to it for me. As it tends to accomplish so much in such a short space of time there's only so much the camera can show you in the time available and everything it can't is left to the imagination.

The constant motion in a music video and the variances it shows mean that a strong CU is a stable point. The music video "brings us towards these peaks, holds us against them, and then releases us" - do you agree?

I agree, a stable CU provides a point at which the viewing experience can be more relaxed than the shakey, handheld long/mid shots, due to less movement within the frame. It makes the viewer feel more comfortable and allows them to view the artist's performance in close. This can be seen as a 'peak' as it is used to not only relax the audience but break up the shots and add variety to the camerawork, after it passes the camera can once again conform back to constant motion.

Is the viewer "sutured (stitched) into the diegesis of the film world through the editing"?

Within the world of film it is important for the editing to be seamless and unnoticable so that the viewers suspension of disbelief in upheld. However, in contrast, the suspension of disbelief in music video is created through techniques such as sound, lip-syncing and a convincing all round performance making the viewer believe that the band are actually performing the song there and then for them specially. What this allows for is a greater use of crazy editing and special effect techniques to enhance the performace as suspension of disbelief is much less of an issue, if even an issue at all.

Music video is freer in terms of viewer identification and perspective - agreed?

Yes I agree, music video is freer in terms of viewer identification and perspective as although the director chooses what to show us, at the end of the video the viewer has a culmination of many performance perspectives. This has allowed the viewer to become very familiar with the sonic space of the video and has seen things such as guitars, outfit and props etc. which give the viewer something to identify with. For example, when I watch a music video I'm always looking out for the guitar so I can spot what make and model it is (sad I know) as this is something I can identify with.

Carol Vernallis believes the image alone cannot tell the story - do you agree?

I agree, as obviously the music in music videos is vital in sending out the message of the song. This is a key difference between film and music video. The imagery in film is very different, slower and tells a story of it's own, whereas music video while still needing the visuals for illustration/amplification can tell the story through it's lyrics.