Promo Videos-What Makes a Good one?

[Vito Corleone]

Here's a couple of videos that I think are very good but are more slick that what I thought would be best for my band. But they still are very good and can provide some good ideas nonetheless.

 

I don't see a direct link to this bands video, but you can download it from the "songs, media" page on their website. At 10 minutes, its WAY too long though, IMO:

 

http://www.meetthetrip.com/

 

Here's another well-done vid. More slick than I would want, but suits the type of band they are very well, IMO:

 

[video=youtube;RwP35XwLnDM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwP35XwLnDM

[Vito Corleone]

 

Then again the 80's tributes have mostly died out. It's a new decade and a new focus on nostalgia.

 

 

Yeah. That's why it seems the guy who runs Tainted Love--who has been tremendously successful around here for the last decade or so--is morphing the band into a 90s band.

 

It will interesting to see how all that goes. I don't think it's entirely clear just what 90's nostalgia will look like yet. Again, most of the most popular and easily identifiable songs of that era weren't particularly fun. Especially from a rock standpoint. It will be interesting to see what the standards from that era end up being.

[wheresgrant3]

Maybe it's just me... I don't think I'd be posting that video as a means to promote my band, despite the 'star power' it displays. At least the front half of it, each subsequent clip sounds like...a really bad cover band barely handling the songs they are attempting. Their 'real' promo clips come off much better to me. The audio quality, or at least the mix on most of it is...not so great, and honestly, if I want to hear a band going through the motions and playing a half-ass, no soul, cookie cutter version of "We Want the Funk", I'll just go see Clinton/P-Funk All-Stars themselves... (Seriously speaking, what I'd say those clips capture is a band that's talented and successful enough to be able to get some high-level names to do a song (or set) with them, but that has little/no prep time with the singer, and the result is absolutely zero cohesion/chemistry on stage).

 

See ... I completely disagree. I think the 2nd video is a tremendous advertising vehicle for the band. Sure the 2nd video has some passable performances but as you said they are backing some named artists. The first video is sanitized, artificial (even my wife caught on "They aren't really sing or playing in front of an audience right?"). Sure it's slickly produced, but it's easy to get the sense that the entire video is staged. The second video there is no question that they are playing in front of a live audience. If I sent these two videos to a nightclub for consideration... which band would they choose (on the merits of the demo?). A video demo is like a resume... it gets you the interview but doesn't guarantee the job. So many put so much emphasis on having a demo... going as far to multitasking audio with fixes and punch ins so they don't resemble anything close to the live product. Club owners want to see one thing in a demo... lots of bodies. Corporate clients might want something different but my guess is a more honest portrayal of a good band goes farther than the manufactured infomercial style.

 

A buddy of mine and bandleader of a local 5 piece cover band just paid $3500 to produce a 'packaged' promotional video aimed at wedding an corporate. It's done at a studio in Long Island where they film all the bands in the area. You spend 4 hours setting up and performing in a controlled environment. It's a three camera setup with all audio tracked and editing done in real time direct to the deck. A bit pricey considering it's not even HD (just standard def). The final product was good... sorta what you see in the first videos Dave posted (without the audience and fake club/stage atmosphere... but it was $3500 The only problem is that the band in the video doesn't exist. To shoot the video he and the guitarist called in a multitude of favors from area musicians. So his normally 5 piece band expanded to 11 members, complete with backup singers and percussion players, for the purpose of the video. I asked him how are you going to sell this package if not everyone is available. He said, no biggie... he'll set a price and just discount from there whoever can't make the performance. How's that for truth in advertising.

[kmart]

 

See ... I completely disagree. I think the 2nd video is a tremendous advertising vehicle for the band. Sure the 2nd video has some passable performances but as you said they are backing some named artists. The first video is sanitized, artificial (even my wife caught on "They aren't really sing or playing in front of an audience right?"). Sure it's slickly produced, but it's easy to get the sense that the entire video is staged. The second video there is no question that they are playing in front of a live audience. If I sent these two videos to a nightclub for consideration... which band would they choose (on the merits of the demo?). A video demo is like a resume... it gets you the interview but doesn't guarantee the job. So many put so much emphasis on having a demo... going as far to multitasking audio with fixes and punch ins so they don't resemble anything close to the live product. Club owners want to see one thing in a demo... lots of bodies. Corporate clients might want something different but my guess is a more honest portrayal of a good band goes farther than the manufactured infomercial style.

 

 

YMMV, of course.

 

When I think of the points you're making in regards to that vid, here's what I'd come to conclusions about/rebut with:

 

1) Of COURSE there's a big crowd in front of them. When you say "VINCE NEIL" or "GEORGE CLINTON", etc. is performing, those names draw crowds. I would NOT assume the draw was due to the band themselves. In fact, even if they claimed it was, I'd be more than skeptical. Hell, in the one part, based on the concentration of Energy Domes present up front and center, the crowd wasn't even there to see the name act they were backing; they were just waiting for the likely headliner, obviously Devo, to take the stage.

 

2) The audio end of it still lacked massively. No, it's not lip syncing, nor is the life Pro-Tooled out of it. But the down-side to being so live and untouched is that all the shortcomings can get highlighted at the same time, and what I saw/heard was a band that was mediocre at best, that didn't have 'it', as a unit on stage. And the preceding video, while not all live, made the band themselves look far more together. I can pay $50-$100 TOTAL if I want a bunch of guys on stage who hash through standard bar songs and sound merely 'ok'. Hell, I can probably get a bunch of guys who play the same to pay me for the privilege.

[Vito Corleone]

 

See ... I completely disagree.

 

 

You make some points that I agree and disagree with. First off, let it be said that I think all manners of video and promotional material can have value depending on the intended use. Just like with songlists, there's no single type of video that works.

 

You're right that these type of videos are more directed for the private event market. In fact, when I looked for the Notorious video to link here I found it was no longer on their website but instead I found it on YouTube with the note "this is the demo we use for private events". Do clubowners want something that is more obviously "live"? Perhaps. Then again, I'm not sure to what degree a video demo is even necessary for clubs. (you would know that much better than I.) It seems to me successful club bands are built on reputations and creating followings much more than whether the clubowner likes your demo or not.

 

But, at the end the day, a video--and all other promo--really exist just to give people a SENSE of the band and what your show is like. Which is the reason you don't have just a static cam showing a live performance in your videos, right? The reason you include so much other stuff is so that people can experience the entire 'vibe' of the performance as much as possible. So, to that degree, I don't think it really matters much whether the audio or video is staged or not, as long as it isn't misleading. Obviously any band using Queen-style overdubs on the audio of their 4-piece band is making a mistake. Bands don't use studio audio and video to sound BETTER than they do, but just to make sure they are putting across their BEST presentation in a controlled environment.

[wheresgrant3]

 

YMMV, of course. When I think of the points you're making in regards to that vid, here's what I'd come to conclusions about/rebut with: 2) The audio end of it still lacked massively. No, it's not lip syncing, nor is the life Pro-Tooled out of it. But the down-side to being so live and untouched is that all the shortcomings can get highlighted at the same time, and what I saw/heard was a band that was mediocre at best , that didn't have 'it', as a unit on stage.

 

 

 

I complete agree with you... but what you 'saw/heard' is represented through a musicians eyes/ears not a 'civilian'. Unless you are the 'buyer' the everyday person making the decision on hiring the band I think most people will gravitate to the live performance. They aren't just listening to the band, they are watching as well. Even my own eyes focused on Vince Neil during the first 20-30 seconds to see if it was really him, or someone ala Steel Panther doing an impersonation. I think few are going to notice whether the band is completely on point... instead they are going to focus their attention on what's going on in the video. Perhaps an entertainment buyer may be different but my guess is not really. We released a live video demo with horrendous audio, warts and all and phone rang off the hook for over two years. Again, it depends on the market and the audience. If I were going wedding I would do whatever it takes to produce quality audio and video in a controlled environment... nightclubs and event bookers here almost always want to hear and see live footage. Warts and all.

 

 

Here's a demo from one of NJ's busiest club bands. It's not my favorite, and I don't like the contrast from the recorded artists to their anemic live audio. Still it hist all the important information influencing someone to make a decision about the band... testimonials, number of shows, sponsorships... etc. Live footage is pretty much a requirement for agency level bookings in the Northeast. They won't book you on the promise that you might sound as good as you did in the Pro Tools version. This band plays from DC to Boston every weekend along with Top sporting events. Certainly not a video for the private events market, but they earn top dollar in the clubs every Tues-Sunday across 6-7 states.

 

[video=youtube;fQZi19Wf5Yc]

[guitarguy19]

I think, like others have said, it depends on what your target is. Our video that we just did recently, is nothing more than a stationary camera cut up with a few still shots and then closer up video shots overlayed. For our target, which is bars and clubs and such, I think this is a good place to start. I know it could've been better, but this cost us almost nothing (which was unfortunately our budget) money wise. It shows what we look and sound like playing live, and shows good crowd interaction. That's basically what our target is.

 

I think that new camcorders these days have pretty solid audio capability, provided they're placed in a spot where they can evenly pick up the mix and then not moved. Plus, the LIVE audio aspect can IMO be a selling point to a talent buyer. It might not be perfect, but it shows you actually sound good live and not just in a studio.

 

Dx6tmoZFWyU

[wheresgrant3]

Here's another... I personally love this video. It hits on all cylinders and it's a great representation for these guys. Audio was recorded at a show and mixed and mastered up afterward. Still it's the live footage that really helps to sell it. These guys are another top earner and a terrific band!

 

[video=youtube;KT0hp3ZtAT8]

[jayare]

 

 

 

great video...there is a band here in NE Ohio called "The Earthquakers"...same deal-- Amish Rockers...the singer always says

'Thank Thee,Thank Thee" after every song...also they will occasionally have a bicycle hooked up to a "generator" on the stage...as one of the members pedals the bike...the lights will slowly come up

[Vito Corleone]

 

Nice work David^. If you ever decide to revisit it, I'd cut the length of each song by half. I know the temptation is to let the music be heard but I think in the case of a promo like this, the more you suggest, and the less you tell, the better. It sounds great, don't get me wrong, but shorter will keep the original recordings in the minds of the buyer. Just move through them, they sound great, bambambam = WOW!

 

 

Thanks, Lee. Yes, I agree. Actually it was more about having a certain number of video images I wanted to use rather than the audio. I need to record at least one song with Amy singing lead, and there's a couple of tracks on there I don't need at all, but yes--my intention is to get it under 4 minutes.

 

OTHO, the one time where "less is more" may not be the rule is selling the band for weddings. Which we do a lot of.

[Vito Corleone]

 

I complete agree with you... but what you 'saw/heard' is represented through a musicians eyes/ears not a 'civilian'.

 

 

I might suggest that you're doing the same thing. Honestly, I don't think 90% of the general public probably notices that those videos are lip-synced and 90% of those who do notice don't care. Both those bands are among the very busiest, highest paid bands in a VERY competitive market. Playing both the top clubs and a lot of private events. In their cases, the results speak for themselves. I really don't think they are missing out on any gigs or leaving any money on the table because the videos aren't "live" enough.

 

In the case of our video, I've always taken the attitude that we're not trying to fool anybody by the fact that its lip-synced. To me it seems pretty obvious, but I suspect most people think it IS live, even considering the fact that the video is from a multitude of different performances. I can't speak about those who don't bother to say anything--all I can tell you is I've yet to hear from a single potential client who any gave indication that they noticed or cared about the lip-syncing nor has it hurt our bookings and earnings. In fact, the amount of gigs we booked and the amount of money we charge pretty much doubled once we started using that video.

 

 

Live footage is pretty much a requirement for agency level bookings in the Northeast. They won't book you on the promise that you might sound as good as you did in the Pro Tools version.

 

 

I think any band that didn't live up to the promise of their video would be over-and-done very quickly. I've never once gotten the idea that anybody ever thought we weren't as good as we billed ourselves and I suspect those other bands would tell you the same thing. Again, it's just about putting your best foot forward and trying to put out the best representation of what the show will be like.

 

I dunno---but to me it seems like a no-brainer that when we're asking upwards of $5K a show that I'd rather have the client looking at a video they suspect is probably lip-synced ala the stuff they've seen on TV for the last 30 years as opposed to explaining to them that "well, of course we sound much better than that LIVE--that's just the poor audio you get when you rely on the video camera microphone..."

[wheresgrant3]

 

I might suggest that you're doing the same thing. Honestly, I don't think 90% of the general public probably notices that those videos are lip-synced and 90% of those who do notice don't care. Both those bands are among the very busiest, highest paid bands in a VERY competitive market. Playing both the top clubs and a lot of private events. In their cases, the results speak for themselves. I really don't think they are missing out on any gigs or leaving any money on the table because the videos aren't "live" enough. In the case of our video, I've always taken the attitude that we're not trying to fool anybody by the fact that its lip-synced. To me it seems pretty obvious, but I suspect most people think it IS live, even considering the fact that the video is from a multitude of different performances. I can't speak about those who don't bother to say anything--all I can tell you is I've yet to hear from a single potential client who any gave indication that they noticed or cared about the lip-syncing nor has it hurt our bookings and earnings. In fact, the amount of gigs we booked and the amount of money we charge pretty much doubled once we started using that video. I think any band that didn't live up to the promise of their video would be over-and-done very quickly. I've never once gotten the idea that anybody ever thought we weren't as good as we billed ourselves and I suspect those other bands would tell you the same thing. Again, it's just about putting your best foot forward and trying to put out the best representation of what the show will be like. I dunno---but to me it seems like a no-brainer that when we're asking upwards of $5K a show that I'd rather have the client looking at a video they suspect is probably lip-synced ala the stuff they've seen on TV for the last 30 years as opposed to explaining to them that "well, of course we sound much better than that LIVE--that's just the poor audio you get when you rely on the video camera microphone..."

 

 

 

Dave... you're misunderstanding me. I'm not suggesting by any means the effort of putting together a well produced promotional video complete with studio recorded audio is not worth it or disingenuine. I think both videos by the band you posted are great... I was really responding to the comment thrown out that audio needs to be absolutely perfect. I'll argue that it needs to be good, but you need good audio and images really need to help sell the band. Remember most agents/buyers are watching this on a 21" monitor and listening with 3" laptop speakers.

 

I'll concede that maybe the Northeast club scene is probably different than other areas of the country. It also might be one of the few places a top band can get booked in a nightclub for a few $thousand$ per night. I will state only from experience... direct from our agents... buyers want to see live video from bands. Even studio produced promos must have some live video or audio clips accompanied them. Again you are an agent trying to sell a Jersey band at a ski resort in VT the bar wants to see and hear what the band looks and sounds like live. That band is traveling 400 miles through ice and snow. There is no room for disappointment. I can't point to any bands with sup'd up video demos that have lost gigs because of misrepresentation... but I know of several bands over the years that have lost gigs because their audio demo wasn't even close to their live product.

 

You're asking $5000 for an event... most bands are looking to get booked at a bar for $1000. I'm just talking about scale here... and again perhaps we're talking about different markets. We don't even have a demo... yet we've been booked into other markets on the strength of non-professional video product. I'm not saying that is a replacement for a quality video... but it doesn't exclude it's value either. My buddy on the other hand is out of pocket $3500 for his demo work... I doubt he will get many paying jobs in the short run to return his investment. They still don't have the name and or rep to sell the product beyond the fancy video. And beyond the video they don't even have the band really.

[Vito Corleone]

 

Dave... you're misunderstanding me.

 

 

No, I think we're probably agreeing more than we're disagreeing. I don't think the audio needs to be perfect. I don't think anyone should be overdubbing any parts they aren't doing live. The main reason for recording our demo in the studio was simply because it was the easiest way to get our best performance on tape: it was easier, in our case anyway, to go into a studio than try to get a multi-track live recording, and we can make sure it is the BEST possible performances on tape. Do we sing all those songs that well every night? Hopefully, yes. Most truthfully, no. Of course, you can always go back and patch up live multi-track recordings but then if you're gonna do that...you might as well be in the studio in the first place. FWIW, I purposely tried to keep the audio sounding slightly 'dirty' to keep it a bit more live.

 

As far as not even having a demo for club gigs...I agree. Most club bands around here don't. You get booked on the strength of your reputation and get paid on your ability to draw. To put it another way: by the time you're able to ask $1,500 a night for a club gig, you don't need a demo. The clubowners already know who you are.

 

I don't advocate big-buck fancy demos unless you're in the $5K+ market. We did ours for $300. And frankly, considering what we got from the guy we paid $200 to shoot some footage for us, we could have gotten for much less. The audio cost us about $300 as well but that's only because nobody in the band is set up to do home recording. Most bands could have recorded themselves just as well for much less, I'm sure.

[Vito Corleone]

 

I think both videos by the band you posted are great... I was really responding to the comment thrown out that audio needs to be absolutely perfect.

 

 

Personally, I think both those bands push it on the audio quality. For example, you can hear 3 female vocal parts during "Dancing Queen" on the Notorious video. Obviously their vocals aren't going to sound THAT good live. Personally, I wouldn't push it that far beyond what we could actually pull off live. But that might just be me.

 

Because....I'm gonna guess that 99% of the non-musicians watching that clip neither notice nor care. For the 99%-- they are going to go watch it, think "Wow! Dancing Queen! I love that song! And they look and sound great doing it!" (or not, depending on how they feel about the band and about "Dancing Queen") and make the decision to hire the band based on that. I really don't think very many people are going to go "hmmm....sounds like 3 female voices to me...I only see one chick on stage...I better not risk it...I'll pass..."

 

Like I said at the outset, I think the effort and the professionalism displayed by a quality video is representative of the effort and professionalism the band puts out overall.

 

Take it to the extreme and use that Wonderbread5 video I posted as an example. OBVIOUSLY that video is lip-synced. OBVIOUSLY the audio quality is far above how that band sounds live. BUT--based on that video the band looks entertaining, fun, and professional and any band that goes to THAT much trouble to create a quality video CAN'T possibly show up to the gig and suck. Can they?

[mstreck]

 

Here's another... I personally love this video. It hits on all cylinders and it's a great representation for these guys. Audio was recorded at a show and mixed and mastered up afterward. Still it's the live footage that really helps to sell it. These guys are another top earner and a terrific band!

 

 

They are always playing Seacrets in OC - definitely a top-notch act!