What have you learnt from your
audience feedback?
Once we had thought about all of our ideas and came up with
a final treatment we had to think about target audience and who it would
be. Firstly we looked at Michel
Maffesoli’s target audience theory, this is the ‘urban tribes’ theory.
He said that: “urban tribes are micro groups of people who share common interests in urban areas. The members of these relatively small groups tend to have similar worldviews, dress styles and behavioural patterns. Their social interactions are largely informal and emotionally laden.” His theory in relation to music videos is all down to personal identity and that could cross over with Dennis Mcquial’s uses and gratifications theory, its can all boil down to how you and your personal identity fit into groups.
The ‘groups’ that associate together will tend to listen to the same music and therefore share the same media universe. They watch the same movies and music videos. Certain music genres will generally attract certain ‘urban tribes’.
Such as ‘chavs’ will listen to urban music such as rap and ‘ravers’ would listen to house music which includes drum and bass, dubstep and techno music.
Another useful person that we looked into was Stuart Hall, he said that in media there is such thing as a preferred reading and also oppositional reading. Preferred reading is when someone watches something and they take it in a certain way, when a music video is created the producer has in mind how the audience will see it and if the audience see it in this way it is called a preferred reading. An oppositional reading is when the audience sees it in a whole other way, they take it in the totally wrong way to what they were supposed to, the producer also has to take it in mind so that if this happens then it won’t be seen as bad or wrong but just different. If your video can be seen in different ways it is called polysemic.
Our music videos preferred reading would be that it is obvious that the band member is late and that his day is going from bad to worse, first he is late, then he gets pooped on by a bird, then he helps a criminal to load stolen goods and then he gets chased by a guy dressed in a beer costume, and then he gets to where he should be and there is no-one there. This is the preferred reading, otherwise if anything else was taken from the video then this would be seen as an oppositional reading.
He said that: “urban tribes are micro groups of people who share common interests in urban areas. The members of these relatively small groups tend to have similar worldviews, dress styles and behavioural patterns. Their social interactions are largely informal and emotionally laden.” His theory in relation to music videos is all down to personal identity and that could cross over with Dennis Mcquial’s uses and gratifications theory, its can all boil down to how you and your personal identity fit into groups.
The ‘groups’ that associate together will tend to listen to the same music and therefore share the same media universe. They watch the same movies and music videos. Certain music genres will generally attract certain ‘urban tribes’.
Such as ‘chavs’ will listen to urban music such as rap and ‘ravers’ would listen to house music which includes drum and bass, dubstep and techno music.
Another useful person that we looked into was Stuart Hall, he said that in media there is such thing as a preferred reading and also oppositional reading. Preferred reading is when someone watches something and they take it in a certain way, when a music video is created the producer has in mind how the audience will see it and if the audience see it in this way it is called a preferred reading. An oppositional reading is when the audience sees it in a whole other way, they take it in the totally wrong way to what they were supposed to, the producer also has to take it in mind so that if this happens then it won’t be seen as bad or wrong but just different. If your video can be seen in different ways it is called polysemic.
Our music videos preferred reading would be that it is obvious that the band member is late and that his day is going from bad to worse, first he is late, then he gets pooped on by a bird, then he helps a criminal to load stolen goods and then he gets chased by a guy dressed in a beer costume, and then he gets to where he should be and there is no-one there. This is the preferred reading, otherwise if anything else was taken from the video then this would be seen as an oppositional reading.
After this research
we decided that we didn’t want to isolate any groups of people but it would be
inevitable whichever way we looked at it. So we thought of the gender and age
range of our target audience and then made a video to see whether our song
choice would fit their personal tastes.
This is our video
for target audience research, with this we found out that our song choice will
fit our target audience well. Our target audience is male and females between
the ages of 17-25, we also found out from our target audience research that
females and males both enjoy Orson- No Tomorrow which is our song choice.
Our draft cut was
shown to people of our target audience age range of male and female genders, we
got some feedback from our target audience on our draft cut and these are the
things that were said:
- Good mise-en-scene
- Good editing between the performances
- Good lighting
- Good close ups of main singer
- Nice variety of frames
Things we could
improve on:
- Could have faster cuts at some points
- Lip synching is abit off in places
We took the
improvement feedback well because we knew that there was something we had to
improve on and therefore work towards ‘perfection’.
We had to add more
cutaways into the timeline so that we could speed up the pace of the video,
this would mean that we could then add the narrative in where it was needed and
add in any other shots where we felt weren’t fast enough or following the pace
of the rest of the video.
Once we had sped it
up we had to move some of the shots around so that we could make sure the lip
synching was how it was supposed to be, however once we exported the video into
Quicktime to put onto YouTube it somehow moved things around so the lip
synching was still out a bit.
Feedback from Final cut:
Feedback from Final cut:
- Lip synching is still a bit out of time
- Good lighting used
- Confusing narrative
- Good mise-en-scene
The lip synching has been explained above but the confusing narrative could come from the Stuart Hall theory above, the people watching it to give feedback could have had an oppositional reading of the video.
No comments:
Post a Comment