That’s all YouTube Music is:
music.youtube.com/watch?v=77iH1Z5I2d0
www.youtube.com/watch?v=77iH1Z5I2d0
We can’t say anything but “no”
yeah, I don’t remember what my thought process was here… ignore this part I guess, lol
1 Like
A still image or even a slight animation added to it (like the example @HibiscusKazeneko posted above) I would also not consider a video. It’s just a visual inserted because there has to be something. This would still be true if it would show the lyrics subtitle-style.
But a fully animated lyrics video I definitely consider a video. It’s not a music video clip, but it is a video, and I do mark them as video accordingly.
5 Likes
I don’t have any real opinion about the flag, but in case it’s helpful to have more corner cases, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-9zJFVa0X0 is one of my videos that’s just the sheet music synced to the audio. I’d probably consider it to be comparable to a video with just lyrics, whether that’s a music video or not.
so for instance, would this be marked as a video (either recording or URL) as it’s just a looped video with lyrics over top (as opposed to the official visualizer, which is just a 17-second video loop)
versus this lyric video with several clips (some from the official music video, some not) timed to the music, also with lyrics over top
versus a video with highly animated lyrics but a static illustration as the centerpiece (this is the only official video for this song)
I would personally mark all three examples as video recordings and URLs, linking them to the audio recording as a music video, as they all have video content that isn’t just cover art (in the form of onscreen lyrics)
our great and powerful style overlord @reosarevok seems to agree here in the big video guidelines thread, even creating releases for such videos (tho this post is from over two years ago, lol)
3 Likes
I still don’t think a lyric video is a “music video” in the sense that most people understand it.
Would be great to get some good guidance, either way. We’ll never avoid the grey areas (music is complicated enough… now we’re adding pictures that move!)
5 Likes
yeah, that’s why I usually add (official lyric video) or (official music video) to the disambiguation for these recordings to prevent confusion as much as possible
4 Likes
It’s not a music video, but it is a video in the sense of that checkbox.
4 Likes
Every link to YouTube is a video, in the sense of that checkbox.
The question here is, what definition gives the best value/distinction to the end user.
3 Likes
This definitely. One of the reasons I vote for static image as the limit. Otherwise it’s gonna need a very clear explanation or we’ll have the same discussion in edit notes or forums for every case.
3 Likes
Another issue I have with flagging lyric videos etc (of which there can be a lot of, for popular songs) is that it means that they are each a new recording?
‘Proper’ music videos usually have a number of unique credits, and a chance of being used across multiple releases, which makes it valuable to assign a separate recording. And there’s usually just one. In the absence of that, I fear we would be dealing with a lot of duplicate recordings and credits.
+1
In my understanding, ‘video’ checkbox was always for video according to the technical definition, so I considered and marked as video every recording that had some movement\animation in it even if this change is minimal. The key was it is not a static image.
Because in any other case, the definition will be too complicated.
Yes, they are new separate recordings and there is a lot of them.
As someone who likes adding covers, lyric video, visualizations and all other types of video content that is created by people, there are tons of them. But the most common situation is when some artist publishes one music video and perhaps one lyric video and all other versions most often are made by fans, so in fact, credits will not be the same. In addition, the recordings will not be the same. It only will look so, because MB doesn’t store visuals of them or any fingerprint of these video, so in theory it can be a little bit hard to differentiate them, if someone will decide to add all visualizations for one popular song. But 1) it is a rare story, because it is hard to add video releases, so not many people will be ready for that, 2) credits are different, so the differentiating still will be possible.
In addition, the recordings will not be the same. It only will look so, because MB doesn’t store visuals of them or any fingerprint of these video
The only one real problem I see is generated AcousticID for such video, that is used by MB and many other users, will be the same for many different video recordings, because they share the same audio. But this problem exists already even with usual video releases, so it is AcousticID/MB DB problem and should not be the reason for forbidding to add such video
1 Like
Well, no. That’s why we have this discussion. There seems to be a very broad concensus that not everything on Youtube counts as a video for us.
But I do believe that if an artist or label commissioned an animated lyrcis video this often has an artistic value on its own. We had a couple of examples already above. Here is another of those lyrics videos I think is more than just some placeholder images:
I never understood the “video” checkbox for meaning only “music video”. That would mean we would not set that flag for e.g. interview parts on live DVDs, or probably not even for live video recordings per se.
3 Likes
Like the rest of my post says: “The question here is, what definition gives the best value/distinction to the end user.”
edit: but it seems like I am in the minority here so I am happy to bow out 