“you Just got Covered”
119
The intention of this study is not to evaluate online videos of song covers in
terms of success or failure, departure from or fidelity to an original song, but
to take into account the visual aspects of the phenomenon of YouTube cover
song videos made by non-professional videographers/non-commercially
successful musicians, and to illustrate that the visual elements of these
videos also establish a dialogue with existing industry-related and other
user-generated practices such as radio visualizations, home videos, and
vlogging. This phenomenon could be read as a form of para-adaptation
because a great number of these videos are no-budget productions, which
surround, or become a defining adaptation of, a commercial source product,
and deliberately or due to a lack of media production competencies “fail” to
meet the aesthetics or quality of industry standards. Rather than subtracting
from their appeal, these “failures” in essence underpin the success of these
videos. Therefore, the visual relationship of these cover song videos with the
entertainment industry is to a certain extent one of aesthetic difference,
which is in no small part the result of recognizable technical and technological limitations nonetheless deemed acceptable by the YouTube community.
This difference is sometimes adopted by “lo-fi” commercial entertainment,
and YouTube-inspired shows or show segments often become a space where
celebrities can themselves perform everyday “fails” or display a different set
of talents such as lip-syncing mastery (e.g. Lip Sync Battle). 25
The covering process by amateur musicians can be described as “parasitic”
since YouTube performers feed off the popularity of commercial music videos
or performances also hosted on YouTube. Existing research indicates that
authorized “music videos are among the most popular content shared on
YouTube.” 26 According to a 2012 Nielsen report the teen’s dominant choice
for discovering music in the US is YouTube. 27 Liikkanen and Salovaara also
note that YouTube is “the most recognized digital music brand.” 28 The same
authors write that derivative videos (covers being a subcategory of this
broader category proposed by the authors) are “the most heterogeneous
of all the primary music video types. These videos were inspired by the
25 See also Edmond’s discussion of the music video of the song “Here We Go Again” (2006) by
the group OK Go. Maura Edmond, “Here We Go Again Music Videos after YouTube,” Television
& New Media 15.4 (2014): 305–320.
26 Christopher J. Schneider, “Music Videos on YouTube: Exploring Participatory Culture on
Social Media.” Symbolic Interactionist Takes on Music 47 (2016): 98.
27 www.nielsen.com/us/en/press-room/2012/music-discovery-still-dominated-by-radio--saysnielsen-music-360.html. Accessed February 15, 2019.
28 Lassi A. Liikkanen and Antti Salovaara, “Music on YouTube: User Engagement with Traditional, User-appropriated and Derivative Videos,” Computers in Human Behavior 50 (2015): 108.
119
The intention of this study is not to evaluate online videos of song covers in
terms of success or failure, departure from or fidelity to an original song, but
to take into account the visual aspects of the phenomenon of YouTube cover
song videos made by non-professional videographers/non-commercially
successful musicians, and to illustrate that the visual elements of these
videos also establish a dialogue with existing industry-related and other
user-generated practices such as radio visualizations, home videos, and
vlogging. This phenomenon could be read as a form of para-adaptation
because a great number of these videos are no-budget productions, which
surround, or become a defining adaptation of, a commercial source product,
and deliberately or due to a lack of media production competencies “fail” to
meet the aesthetics or quality of industry standards. Rather than subtracting
from their appeal, these “failures” in essence underpin the success of these
videos. Therefore, the visual relationship of these cover song videos with the
entertainment industry is to a certain extent one of aesthetic difference,
which is in no small part the result of recognizable technical and technological limitations nonetheless deemed acceptable by the YouTube community.
This difference is sometimes adopted by “lo-fi” commercial entertainment,
and YouTube-inspired shows or show segments often become a space where
celebrities can themselves perform everyday “fails” or display a different set
of talents such as lip-syncing mastery (e.g. Lip Sync Battle). 25
The covering process by amateur musicians can be described as “parasitic”
since YouTube performers feed off the popularity of commercial music videos
or performances also hosted on YouTube. Existing research indicates that
authorized “music videos are among the most popular content shared on
YouTube.” 26 According to a 2012 Nielsen report the teen’s dominant choice
for discovering music in the US is YouTube. 27 Liikkanen and Salovaara also
note that YouTube is “the most recognized digital music brand.” 28 The same
authors write that derivative videos (covers being a subcategory of this
broader category proposed by the authors) are “the most heterogeneous
of all the primary music video types. These videos were inspired by the
25 See also Edmond’s discussion of the music video of the song “Here We Go Again” (2006) by
the group OK Go. Maura Edmond, “Here We Go Again Music Videos after YouTube,” Television
& New Media 15.4 (2014): 305–320.
26 Christopher J. Schneider, “Music Videos on YouTube: Exploring Participatory Culture on
Social Media.” Symbolic Interactionist Takes on Music 47 (2016): 98.
27 www.nielsen.com/us/en/press-room/2012/music-discovery-still-dominated-by-radio--saysnielsen-music-360.html. Accessed February 15, 2019.
28 Lassi A. Liikkanen and Antti Salovaara, “Music on YouTube: User Engagement with Traditional, User-appropriated and Derivative Videos,” Computers in Human Behavior 50 (2015): 108.