(Note: this was going to be a contribution to an UnCon vidshow, but it got out of hand. Badly out of hand. So I figured I'd post it here and spare all the virtual con-goers a lot of scrolling
( Read more... )
Vid feedback is a subject that fascinates me. And I've definitely been wrong before - see, um, that whole post I just linked for details - about what vidders want and don't want in terms of feedback; like, before I did the project that post describes, I didn't realize just how much live-action vidders didn't get comments or feedback. (Compared to fan fiction, I mean - a story in a given fandom will get way more feedback than a vid of the same quality in the same fandom.) And I also didn't realize how much they wanted those comments, even from uninformed non-vidder types. (Which is what I am.)
But anime vidders have always struck me as a different bunch, and that's not a totally uninformed opinion; I know a couple of them, and they don't seem very interested in "I liked this!" type comments. And, of course, there's the Guide to Opinions, which I've actually read several times (and once - but only once - attempted to follow), and which I tend to summarize in my own mind as, "Leave feedback, damn it. But it had better be good feedback, meeting these exacting standards, and if it isn't, you suck."
So these things lead me - or have led me - to believe that most AMV makers don't want unconstructive praise from people they don't know. I've wondered if this is because of the differences between live-action vidding and AMV making; for AMVs, there are contests and there are winners, plus there are the star rankings, so there's a sort of internal system for creating a hierarchy, and to ascend in that hierarchy, you need approval from other AMVers. Whereas in live-action vidding, the primary audience for vids is non-vidders, not other vidders, and there aren't really many contests or winners. The only reward live-action vidders get for their work is feedback from the viewers, who are, again, mostly fans of the source and not vidders themselves. In other words, my perception up to now has been that for AMV makers, the basic currency is critical acclaim from other AMV makers, whereas for live-action vidders, the basic currency is praise from the general fannish community.
Obviously, that makes a huge difference. I whine at people to leave vid feedback all the time, and I always tell them specifically not to do that for anime vids, because the people I know are part of the fannish community, but they are most definitely not AMV makers. And so, by what I've known up to now, live-action vidders very much want feedback from these people, whereas anime vidders don't.
So I guess my question is: really? AMV makers want to get "I loved it!" type feedback from people they don't know who have no standing in the AMV world? If so, um. I've been misleading people. Whoops. (Also, I owe - going by my amv.org download stats - approximately 600 pieces of feedback to AMV makers. Double whoops.)
My second question is: is there a way to test this, to find out for sure what most AMV makers want? (In general, if I'm going to whine at people to do something, I like to make sure I've tried it myself first.) In live-action vidding, I could figure out what vidders actually wanted by sending them feedback myself, but that's because we have the fannish convention of replying to feedback, especially emailed feedback. I don't think AMVers have that same convention; I suspect that if I sent randomly selected AMV makers feedback on a video, they wouldn't email me back. So a test run wouldn't tell me much - I have to get responses to know how the vidders reacted. And posting a poll to vidding wouldn't get me responses from AMV makers. So, do you have any suggestions for ways to find out what the average AMV maker thinks about random, uninformed praise? I'd very much love to know, because this is a topic I've been pondering for years.
> So these things lead me - or have led me - to believe that most AMV makers don't want unconstructive praise from people they don't know. I've wondered if this is because of the differences between live-action vidding and AMV making; for AMVs, there are contests and there are winners, plus there are the star rankings, so there's a sort of internal system for creating a hierarchy, and to ascend in that hierarchy, you need approval from other AMVers.
What people have to remember about the AMV community is that the great majority of Org members are just doing it for fun. They don't care about the contests, they don't care about the heirarchy, they don't care about my car, they don't care about my money, and some of them don't even care about getting constructive criticism (some of them can't even handle it). My impression of the average AMVer is pretty similar to my impression of the average fanfic writer. I think the reason people forget this is because it's the minority, the people who DO really get into the whole competitive aspect, that tends to do most of the talking there.
I mean, personally, when I first got into AMVing, I was quite pleasantly surprised when my first few videos made bigger splashes and got more feedback than I'd ever expected them to...
Even limiting ourselves to talking about the so-called heirarchy for the time being: There are contests, Top 10% lists, top Star Scale score lists, etc. ... but the non-vidding audience participates just as much in moving videos up the ranks. Many AMV contests at conventions are decided by a vote of the viewing audience (the largest such example being Otakon), and most of the opinions and star scores that get videos moved up those lists come from audience-only Org members who have never made a video in their lives. A-M-V.org is blocked at my office, so I can't pull up the stats right now, but it has historically been the case that the non-vidding members at the Org far outnumber the vidding ones.
I think a good bit of supporting evidence for my position that most AMVers would love to hear any feedback is the addition of the Quick Comments feature (what was it, two years ago that it was added? something like that), which was specifically designed to make it easier to leave feedback if you didn't feel like taking the time to write out a detailed opinion.
(Of course, just looking at the opinions I've gotten, most are no longer than a few lines each; it doesn't take much effort to dial in a bunch of 9s and 10s and gush a little about the video.)
> My second question is: is there a way to test this, to find out for sure what most AMV makers want? [...] I don't think AMVers have that same convention; I suspect that if I sent randomly selected AMV makers feedback on a video, they wouldn't email me back.
Well, they might not email you back, but there's a good chance they'd respond to your opinion (it would then show up in pink on the "My Opinions Given" page). Also, once you've left an opinion on a video, you can read all the other opinions left by other people on that video, so you can see if the creator usually responds, what kinds of responses s/he gives, etc.
Or, you could just make a post about this topic on the General AMV section of the forum. I'm sure it would spark some very lively discussion; I don't think that wanted vs. unwanted feedback is something we talk about a lot.
I think the reason people forget this is because it's the minority, the people who DO really get into the whole competitive aspect, that tends to do most of the talking there.
This is an excellent point, and one I should have considered but hadn't: the most visible do not necessarily represent the majority.
My impression of the average AMVer is pretty similar to my impression of the average fanfic writer.
From the outside, the AMV world looks so different from the FF world. (Also from the outside, the live-action vidding world looks a lot like the fan fiction world, but that's not surprising; they have a very tightly interlinked history.) And yet, well, obviously the two groups share a common interest in breaking copyright for fun, not profit, and sincere love of their chosen canon. One thing I don't see in the AMV world is the multilayered community aspect, but then, I wouldn't, would I? I'm not in the AMV community.
Hmmm. Makes sense. And the one thing (almost) every FF writer craves is feedback: someone saying, "Hey, I read this. I liked it." So, if the two groups are similar, then (almost) every AMV maker should crave reviews, even if they just say, "Hey, I watched this. I liked it."
Of course, that makes me wonder why you don't talk about it more, if it's something you all want. But I'm getting ahead of myself.
Of course, just looking at the opinions I've gotten, most are no longer than a few lines each; it doesn't take much effort to dial in a bunch of 9s and 10s and gush a little about the video.
True, and if that's acceptable, that's also totally doable. But, going by the Guide to Opinions, that's not acceptable - except, of course, going by the Guide to Opinions is me once again letting the most vocal speak for the entire community. There really is no way to figure out what people want but either testing them or asking them, is there?
Well, they might not email you back, but there's a good chance they'd respond to your opinion (it would then show up in pink on the "My Opinions Given" page). Also, once you've left an opinion on a video, you can read all the other opinions left by other people on that video, so you can see if the creator usually responds, what kinds of responses s/he gives, etc.
Don't take this wrong way, but I kind of hate you right now. You made two excellent suggestions, and they are totally workable, and that means my last objection to a project to figure out what, if anything, AMV makers want from viewers is totally blown out of the water.
In other words: oh my god, I'm going to have to grapple with the opinion form after all. I was sure I was excused from that! (And, guess what: I'm going to practice on you. After all, you're one of the only AMV makers I've ever heard actually speak the words "I want reviews.")
Or, you could just make a post about this topic on the General AMV section of the forum. I'm sure it would spark some very lively discussion; I don't think that wanted vs. unwanted feedback is something we talk about a lot.
Seriously? You guys don't talk about feedback? That's, like, one of the main topics of discussion in these parts; you can pretty much set your watch by feedback meta, and your calendar by feedback wank.
On the other hand, if you don't talk about it obsessively, that really explains some of the stranger interactions I've had with AMV makers since I started recommending AMVs.
So, let's see what happens if I ask about this on the boards. Spirited discussion? Grim silence? Should be interesting.
And, okay, opinions. I have them. Presumably I can give them.
> One thing I don't see in the AMV world is the multilayered community aspect...
Not quite sure what you mean by "multilayered community", but then, I'm not in the vidding or FF communities, so.
If you mean social stratification, some people do claim that it exists, and some people don't. Some claim that there's an "elite" group of friends that you have to get famous in order to get into, which usually prompts those who are perceived as being on that level to say that there is no such "inner circle" and that they really don't mind meeting other AMVers of all skill levels.
If you mean in terms of Internet presence, there is the Org, which was always meant to be a one stop shop -- a warehouse for every AMV in existence as well as a centralized hub for the community... but plenty of AMVers and AMV production groups have their own websites with their own fora, etc., and there are always people out there who haven't heard of any of them. (And then, in recent years, there's things like YouTube.)
> Of course, that makes me wonder why you don't talk about it more, if it's something you all want.
Well, there is a whole section of the forum devoted to exchanging opinions, but I think most of the people who start threads in there tend to be of the type that give long and detailed ops, so.
> But, going by the Guide to Opinions, that's not acceptable - except, of course, going by the Guide to Opinions is me once again letting the most vocal speak for the entire community.
I honestly don't think most Org members even know that guide exists. <^^ It's very rarely mentioned on the forum. Looking at the date, it was also probably written in a time when there were proportionately more of the more serious-type AMV editors frequenting the site. As AMVing got more mainstream in the years that followed, more of the casual fans and editors joined up. Slightly akin to any community that starts underground but becomes mainstream, like even the animé fandom in general... but I'm probably not the best one to talk about AMVing going mainstream, seeing as how I've only been in the community since 2003.
> Don't take this wrong way, but I kind of hate you right now. You made two excellent suggestions, and they are totally workable, and that means my last objection to a project to figure out what, if anything, AMV makers want from viewers is totally blown out of the water.
Good luck! ^_^ I'm always interested to see what kind of viewpoints and opinions arise out of discussions and experiments like this in the community...
Not quite sure what you mean by "multilayered community", but then, I'm not in the vidding or FF communities, so.
What I meant by multilayered - okay. With fan fiction and live-action vidding, especially on LJ, fannish interaction becomes a springboard to personal interaction; we make friends, we post about our lives (well, except that I don't post about my life very much, but I am most definitely the outlier, there), we eventually interact on levels that have nothing to do with fannish activities. Eventually, we move on to other fandoms and other activities, but we tend to stay in touch with our old friends.
This multilayered interaction pattern has weird effects on the community as a whole - like, there's a lot of cross-pollination, a lot of weird ties, a lot of old buried wanks that get reaired every year or two. And it also has a major effect on how and why we leave feedback, how we respond to feedback, all that.
In general, I don't see that kind of interaction happening as much in AMV circles. But, as I said, I wouldn't; I'm not in those circles.
If you mean social stratification, some people do claim that it exists, and some people don't.
Okay, excuse me while I fall down laughing, because that is such a familiar topic to me. We have exactly that discussion all the time, except we call the inner circle folks Big Name Fans. People say that BNFs get more feedback (See? Everything ties into feedback here!), get their stories recommended more often, get friended more often, blah blah blah blah. In addition, we often hear that BNFs are trying to Rule Fandom. (They aren't. One of them once did, but these days trying to rule fandom would be like trying to rule several hundred thousand feral cats.) Or Ruin Fandom. Or Crush Newbies. All kinds of things. Those who are identified as BNFs, in turn, insist that a) there is no such thing as a BNF and b) if there is such a thing, they certainly aren't one.
It's good to know that some things are constants.
Well, there is a whole section of the forum devoted to exchanging opinions, but I think most of the people who start threads in there tend to be of the type that give long and detailed ops, so.
Frankly, I have always feared the forum, so I have no idea; my post today was my first venture into there. (Behold as I stalk the wiley anime vidder in its natural habitat!)
I honestly don't think most Org members even know that guide exists.
Seriously? Wow. It was the second thing I read once I joined. Although, really, that's not too surprising, given that the fan fiction and live-action vidding communities place so much more emphasis on feedback.
Well, that, plus I really like the concept of guides. By now I've read through most of the technical ones, too, and I will never ever make a vid of any kind.
As AMVing got more mainstream in the years that followed, more of the casual fans and editors joined up.
Interesting. Live-action vidding has seen that same kind of change, too; I tend to think in terms of old school and new school vidders, because although they both can make great vids (and they can both make totally sucky ones), the ones who started in, say, 2000 have very different outlooks and attitudes than the ones who started in just the last few years.
I'm probably not the best one to talk about AMVing going mainstream, seeing as how I've only been in the community since 2003.
In fannish years, I think that means you started about two full generations ago, so, hey, talk away.
I'm always interested to see what kind of viewpoints and opinions arise out of discussions and experiments like this in the community...
Obviously, I'm interested, too. Let's see what happens. And, since I can already tell that the eventual result of all this is going to be an essay of some description - may I quote you and/or link to these comments when I do write that essay? It will take me quite a while to get through the feedback portion of this project and on to the meta-writing portion, but I might as well ask while I have you here.
Re. multilayering: Ah, okay. That also seems to happen an okay bit in the AMV world: people start interacting online, then meet each other IRL at cons, and the same sort of thing happens... at least, that seems to hold true for the people on my friends list. I mean, two of them even got an apartment together, and I think they met via the AMV community, but I could be wrong. It probably happened more back in the days of the Off Topic forum, which Phade had originally started in order to help AMVers get to know each other better... come to think of it, I guess he was trying to promote exactly this kind of phenomenon. But in late 2003, I think it was, they closed that board due to abuse that was getting out of hand.
You should see some of the conversations that people have across their a-m-v.org journals... often bizarre, random, and having nothing to do with vidding. (And some complain that the journals were never meant to be used as a chat room...)
> Seriously? Wow. It was the second thing I read once I joined.
Well, for all I know, it may be more popular with those who don't talk on the fora. But you wouldn't believe how many people show up on the forum asking questions that prove they never bothered to read those guides. Not even the technical ones; you get stuff like "how do I make AMVs?" or "where do I download the videos?".
Feel free to quote and/or link; I don't think I've said anything too embarrassing. Heck, some of your readers might recognize my name (I've won my fair share of AMV awards) and think that I'm likely to know what I'm talking about. :P
Well, for all I know, it may be more popular with those who don't talk on the fora.
In general, online, I've found that there are people who read to figure things out and people who post so they don't have to figure things out. This is why, in any community, you can have a giant red banner across every page reading "THE ANSWER IS RABBIT," and require people to click on a statement that reads "You know the answer is rabbit, right?" and you will still have posts reading, "Ive ben searchin 4ever WHATS THE ANSER."
Lurkers, on the other hand, can't ask questions; it would require them to come out of lurkerdom. So they read whatever is available and figure it out on their own. Or not.
So, on AMV, my guess is that the people who read the guides are the turtles like me, who avoid the forum and interaction in general. Which means that those guides are all the information those people get about the anime music video culture and community. It makes for a very different picture.
Seriously? You guys don't talk about feedback? That's, like, one of the main topics of discussion in these parts; you can pretty much set your watch by feedback meta, and your calendar by feedback wank.
One of the hallmark differences between the generic vidding community (such as it is) and the AMV community is the amount of meta. The former is chock full of it to an extent I sometimes find difficult to believe. The latter tends not to discuss it in a general sense, except for the rare occasions where it crops up. Or some guy writes down his thoughts on it.
Anyway, the general opinion on feedback seems to be "that which helps me improve is good". Of course, my exposure is somewhat biased, but there you have it.
The former is chock full of it to an extent I sometimes find difficult to believe.
Oh my god, so true. This is likely because, well, the live-action vidders mostly came from (and often are still in) fan fiction based fandom, and if there's one thing fan fiction folks do more than write stories about our favorite characters, it's write about why and how we write stories about our favorite characters. And why and how everything else even tangentially related to writing, too.
Compared to fan fiction, live-action vidding is actually under meta'd, if I may coin a really horrible verb. Which means that to the average fan fiction fan who is used to reading metafandom, it's completely bewildering how little meta there is about AMVs.
Anyway, the general opinion on feedback seems to be "that which helps me improve is good". Of course, my exposure is somewhat biased, but there you have it.
*thoughtful*
Actually, the general opinion seems to break down into precisely the same categories, and in roughly the same ratios, as opinion about feedback in the fan fiction community. So you have:
Feedback is good. Any feedback; it's nice to know people are watching and liking my work. And if people want to throw in some extra reactions or thoughts or helpful criticism, that is also good. Yay feedback!
Feedback that helps me improve is good. Any feedback that says what did and didn't work is welcome, especially if said feedback is relatively rational and sane.
Only concrit is good. I only want detailed feedback from someone who really knows his stuff, that will greatly improve my work - basically, a beta after the fact.
Only praise is good. I don't want to hear any negative things about my thing that I work hard on, don't get paid for, and love very much. (Note: no one seems to be copping to having this opinion, but people are reporting unhappy encounters with many others who do have this opinion. This attitude, and its prevalence in all fanworks communities, is what has driven fan fiction from the now-legendary Letter of Comment - basically, an ex post facto beta - to the LJ comment: "Ooo, yay, loved it, especially [quote line] and [quote line]. Awesome!" With the corollary that if you can't say something nice, you don't say anything, except in certain defined circumstances.)
Whatever. I don't care. I have no interest in comments, feedback, or opinions.
The problem endlessly discussed in general feedback meta is the conflict between numbers 3 and 4. If you send concrit to someone who only wants praise, you have a) just wasted an hour of your time and b) pissed someone off. This isn't what you were hoping to do at all. (If you praise someone who just wants concrit, you've wasted only a few minutes of your time and his, which is a lot better. Plus, people have other ways of getting concrit (betas!), which is why LJ has become a mostly praise-only feedback community. It's the route of least wank, basically.)
And the problem endlessly discussed in vid feedback meta is the Viewer Problem. Most viewers don't have the tools and/or confidence to provide 3, and some won't even be able to provide 2, but everyone can provide 1 and 4. So the question becomes: what is better than nothing? Is any feedback (aside from trollishness and asshole comments) better than none? Or is there a minimum standard below which the feedback is worthless, or worse than worthless, and thus a waste of everyone's time?
My original thesis, based on some stuff I outlined to Scintilla above, was that there was indeed a minimum standard, and that in the AMV world that minimum standard was quite high - so high that a casual non-vidding viewer could never meet it. Scintilla's argument was, in effect, that that was untrue, that the minimum standard for AMV feedback was the same as for feedback anywhere (comprehensible and not trollish, basically).
For my next trick, I'm going to try leaving some feedback and see what happens.
(And now you see how come there is all this meta about live-action vidding and fan fiction: the people involved in it, even peripherally, cannot shut up. (Guilty!))
Which means that to the average fan fiction fan who is used to reading metafandom, it's completely bewildering how little meta there is about AMVs.
Well, there is meta (by which I figure you mean "amvs about amving/amvers") but it may not be immediately obvious unless you've been digging around in AMVs for a while. Hell, AWA's grand prize Expo winner this year was Brian's Song, and the whole thing is an enormous in-joke. Most of the meta stuff, though, is disguised so that most viewers will still think it funny without understanding it. Similarly, dokidoki's Hello Fairy video is actually a meta commentary about the "Hell" trend, but is pretty hilarious in all other respects too. (See also doki's Sunshine Lollipops and RRRrrrr.) The "Hell" vids themselves could be considered somewhat meta. And, of course, there's plenty of "meta" commentary about anime trends in amvs... jokes on similarities between shows, the predictability of stories, the lameness of it's fans. (Don't mean to be boosting Doki so much, he's just who came to mind in the "meta" category.)
(And one more meta vid I just have to plug, 'cause I'm in it...this one.)
On the other topics... I dunno what to tell you about the comments. As a contest director I figured out a while ago that it would be a conflict for me to do extensive commenting on vids I might eventually have to judge, so I bowed out of that aspect. I think your impression about the complexity of the comments desired might be true to a larger extent in AMVs than for vidders, largely because the AMV community expanded so rapidly to enormous dimensions, and yet remained largely centralized. That means when a really popular vid does the rounds the editor can just get mobbed with people gushing over the vid, with very little interesting to say. Then, since everyone's looking in their direction, everyone sees when they pay much more attention to someone with a detailed review instead of a simple "good work" comment.
However, back when I was doing feedback, I found that AMVers who hadn't made it into the spotlight were very appreciative of my reviews, would go back and forth a couple of times in discussion, and beam in their journals about getting a review. Our version of your "big names" may be doing vids with a more specific audience in mind (specific amvers & friends) while newcomers are more apt to throw their vid out into the world, hoping to attract any attention they could get.
As for elitists... yeah that seems pretty universal. In AMVs it's mostly that the "old schoolers" were a pretty tightly-knit group for three or four years when stuff like the contests started coming out. Time allowed for drama & personality conflicts to fragment it, but more importantly the flood of new blood all wanting to be best buds with the "old schoolers" became difficult to deal with on an individual basis. Regional cliques formed, pseudo-factions broke out on the message boards, and we oldest and most bitter of amvers started retiring. It's not really elitism, it's just who we're good friends with.
Okay, first, I just have to ask: how did you find this? I'm delighted to have you weighing in on this topic, but this is the tail-end of the comments section of an ancient post that I'm not even sure how Scintilla found, so I'm also confused.
Well, there is meta (by which I figure you mean "amvs about amving/amvers") but it may not be immediately obvious unless you've been digging around in AMVs for a while.
Oh, good point. I should've specified "written meta." Because, of course, AMVs have a fantastic amount of meta-in-the-form-of-AMVs - they just don't seem to have the same number of essays about AMV making, and the AMV world, and and and. (Live-action vidders do meta vids, too, but the difference in terms of meta essays - well, unless I'm missing a major source of AMV meta writing, we're talking about many orders of magnitude.)
This is one of those fannish language disconnects, I think; in this neck of fandom, when we say "meta," we definitely mean essays unless we tag another noun on there, like "meta vid" or whatever. (And, although we have vids that are commenting on vidding, the most famed meta vid is actually a vid commenting on being a fan.) I keep forgetting that there's a fannish jargon barrier.
I think your impression about the complexity of the comments desired might be true to a larger extent in AMVs than for vidders, largely because the AMV community expanded so rapidly to enormous dimensions, and yet remained largely centralized.
So, basically, comments on AMVs are, at least in that respect, a lot more like comments on fan fiction - the pattern you're describing is precisely what's happened as fan fiction fandom has exploded over the past six years. (Only the last three of which I was around for; I'm relatively new here.)
But, hmm. There seems to be less of a cultural directive in AMVs about appropriate feedback and comment behavior. Even though we argue it endlessly, there are definite unspoken rules about how you deal with feedback and comments (not to mention about a dozen massive, ongoing, never-to-be-resolved debates, and by "debates," I of course mean "vicious fights, often with severe casualities"). AMV makers don't seem to have a more-or-less shared general consensus about when and how you should leave opinions/comments/whatever or how you should respond to them.
Interesting.
It's not really elitism, it's just who we're good friends with.
Uh, yeah. We've got that, too. People go through stages in any hobby, and there's a time, usually when you're newer, when you're expanding your circle of acquaintances and making good friends, and then you come to a point where you don't have the time to do that anymore, so you pretty much just stick with the friends you have, adding one here and there when you can. And then, if you're one of the popular writers or vidders or whatever, people point and shout "clique" and "BNF."
Oh, fandom. We're so consistent in our wankiness. (But at least in AMVs you're probably spared the "mean girls from high school" discussions.)
> I'm delighted to have you weighing in on this topic, but this is the tail-end of the comments section of an ancient post that I'm not even sure how Scintilla found, so I'm also confused.
Oh, sorry about that... I probably should have mentioned that the LJ multifandom RP community campfuckudie's OOC community, campersfuckoff, had an AMV-pimping post, and somebody linked to both of your AMV recommendation posts, partially for the AMVs but also because they were good reading.
Okay, first, I just have to ask: how did you find this?
Heh. I followed dwchang who followed Scintilla. Dunno how dwchang found you.
they just don't seem to have the same number of essays about AMV making, and the AMV world, and and and.
Hmm... have you been through the "journal" function on the .org? Is that the sort of thing you're talking about? Or is it more a matter of circulated essays?
But, hmm. There seems to be less of a cultural directive in AMVs about appropriate feedback and comment behavior.
Heh. With all the highschoolers and teenagers we get flooding in, it's hard to keep anything like a "cultural consensus." If y'all manage it, my hat's off to you. I'm feeling more and more like the cranky old guy shouting at the kids on his lawn, but my impression is that the hobby has very suddenly skewed younger as I've gotten older, and brought a lot of teen angst & HS bullshit with it. On the other hand, it's also skewed more international, so you take the good with the bad. (New perspectives are helping to revitalize the creativity.) There's also a much higher turnover rate in the hobby lately... AMVing has become more like cosplay in that it's something fans consider they have to do qualify as real fans... rather than something a fan will do if they enjoy it.
People go through stages in any hobby...
Well, the difference is that there really was "a" group to start. The first "AMVer group." The very first AMVers (mid 80's on) all vaugely knew one another through the daisy-chain tape-trading circles that had cropped up in the 70's. But they really didn't know one another on a one-on-one basis. The advent of the AMV contests in the mid-to-late 90's, however, meant a place to go and show your work and actually MEET other AMVers. (Plus one of the contest heads made a massive effort to get 'em all down to Atlanta eventually.) And they, the ones that didn't burn out in a year, were a managable number... twenty or thirty people at most. Everyone really did get to know one another one-on-one, and formed a single all-inclusive group of friends who stayed together & hit all the cons for about four years. It was no exaggeration to say that you knew all the AMVers on the East or West coast. That's the group most AMVers refer to as the "old schoolers." The gradually increasing flood that the mailing list, ftp, then the website brought overwhelmed that ability. And then the trolls showed up & any pretense of our hobby being an "all for one" utopia blew up. (Hell, I could put a date to when that happened.) Anyrate, I kinda go into this here if you're at all interested.
But at least in AMVs you're probably spared the "mean girls from high school" discussions.
Well... I'm not familiar with the term. What does it mean?
The link I'd been given before was a "reply thread" that only showed a dozen or so replies. I've probably repeated half the stuff others have said above, trying to be helpful.
Oh, god. I'm going to have to split this comment on you. Sorry!
Hmm... have you been through the "journal" function on the .org? Is that the sort of thing you're talking about? Or is it more a matter of circulated essays?
From what I've seen (limited), the "journal" function appears to be used (by those who use it at all) kind of like we use our LJs - a combination of thinky posts, personal posts, random personal messages, and stuff relating to our various fanworks.
When I say meta, I mean - ummmm. Okay, the first example would be metafandom, which is a newsletter. (And I'm going to define that, just in case you don't know what it is - I'm trying to remember our jargon doesn't always mesh. A newsletter is a LJ comm where a small group of editors rounds up all the relevant links for a given fandom or fannish topic and posts them on a daily, semiweekly, or weekly basis; the vidding equivalent is, right now, veni_vidi_vids, where you can see all the live-action vids, meta, news, etc. gathered from around LJ and beyond.) So, metafandom rounds up all the links of people writing about fandom: essays, rants, whatever. Essentially, whenever fans are talking about some aspect of fannishness (in public, on LJ), metafandom is there.
Another example would be a post I linked Scintilla to, up above: this one. This is a pretty typical fannish meta post, aside from the fact that I was a non-vidder talking about vidding. (Well, and also I can't shut up. Some meta is that long. But some people - people other than me - manage to come to a conclusion before their audience experiences verbiage-related brain damage, and so their meta is shorter.)
So I guess the short answer is "circulated essays," but it's important to know that most fans write them, and most fans read them, and there is a lot of discussion of them. And we write these essays on every topic possible. In extreme cases, we go the acafan route and publish anthologies of academic analysis. Which is just so much meta, except published under real names. (And, you know, with all the trimmings of academic writing - APA style, citations, etc.)
As a community, we really really like writing about ourselves. And what we do.
With all the highschoolers and teenagers we get flooding in, it's hard to keep anything like a "cultural consensus." If y'all manage it, my hat's off to you.
We manage it mostly by having a bifurcated community - if you go to fanfiction.net, you will find a group of very different people. If I was going to describe the typical ff.net denizen, she'd be about 14 years old. She'd write stories in which every Gundam Wing or Harry Potter character falls in love with an original character, who is a girl, and who is better at everything than all the characters. (Smarter! A better fighter! Nicer! Prettier! Etc.!) She has a tragic past. And she has cerulean orbs instead of eyes.
These stories are typically not spellchecked or proofread.
They make those of us, even the teenagers (and there are many, but most of ours know how to write), on LJ either laugh or cry.
The equivalent to an ff.netter in the AMV world would be - okay. He'd be 14. He'd make a Naruto vid set to Linkin Park. He would use downloaded fansubs as his source, so the video quality was incredibly crappy. And he'd leave the subtitles in, all over the place. He wouldn't compress the audio. He'd have stray frames everywhere, so watching it would be kind of like having an eye tic. He'd leave in random lip movements. And his information section would read like this (in toto): "this took liek 2 FUCKIN HOURS to do!!!!11 and naruto ownz so you better leave a good opinion!!!!"
We call ff.net the Pit of Voles for a very good reason. AMV.org kind of contains its own Pit of Voles, which has to suck.
Ah. Film school essays. Gotcha. (Kidding, a little.) It's kinda odd to me for such stuff to be organized enough to circulate. AMVers used to conduct something sorta similar, expounding and explaining on their favs, trends, ideas, etc. on the Journal system on the .org. (There's a device that showed you when your "friends" last updated their journal so you could check on 'em. Weird, stilted, but fairly elaborate discussions happend simultaneously in multi-part across journals in the absence of a "comment" function.) Prior to that, there was some "meta" discussion throughout the amv mailing list when there was a controllable number of people. Upon the appearance of livejournal, though, the more interesting stuff collapsed as the more determined writers jumped ship for the better functionality. I tried to maintain my stuff across both for a few years, but it got tiring.
Now? Hmm. I suppose there might be some meta stuff on the boards. Wouldn't know. You couldn't pay me to go back in there and look. I'll do my fandom/flick/comic reviews out here, thank you very much.
She'd write stories in which every Gundam Wing or Harry Potter character falls in love with an original character, who is a girl, and who is better at everything than all the characters.
Oh, I know what a "Mary Sue" is. Or, more recently, a "Rose Tyler."
Vid feedback is a subject that fascinates me. And I've definitely been wrong before - see, um, that whole post I just linked for details - about what vidders want and don't want in terms of feedback; like, before I did the project that post describes, I didn't realize just how much live-action vidders didn't get comments or feedback. (Compared to fan fiction, I mean - a story in a given fandom will get way more feedback than a vid of the same quality in the same fandom.) And I also didn't realize how much they wanted those comments, even from uninformed non-vidder types. (Which is what I am.)
But anime vidders have always struck me as a different bunch, and that's not a totally uninformed opinion; I know a couple of them, and they don't seem very interested in "I liked this!" type comments. And, of course, there's the Guide to Opinions, which I've actually read several times (and once - but only once - attempted to follow), and which I tend to summarize in my own mind as, "Leave feedback, damn it. But it had better be good feedback, meeting these exacting standards, and if it isn't, you suck."
So these things lead me - or have led me - to believe that most AMV makers don't want unconstructive praise from people they don't know. I've wondered if this is because of the differences between live-action vidding and AMV making; for AMVs, there are contests and there are winners, plus there are the star rankings, so there's a sort of internal system for creating a hierarchy, and to ascend in that hierarchy, you need approval from other AMVers. Whereas in live-action vidding, the primary audience for vids is non-vidders, not other vidders, and there aren't really many contests or winners. The only reward live-action vidders get for their work is feedback from the viewers, who are, again, mostly fans of the source and not vidders themselves. In other words, my perception up to now has been that for AMV makers, the basic currency is critical acclaim from other AMV makers, whereas for live-action vidders, the basic currency is praise from the general fannish community.
Obviously, that makes a huge difference. I whine at people to leave vid feedback all the time, and I always tell them specifically not to do that for anime vids, because the people I know are part of the fannish community, but they are most definitely not AMV makers. And so, by what I've known up to now, live-action vidders very much want feedback from these people, whereas anime vidders don't.
So I guess my question is: really? AMV makers want to get "I loved it!" type feedback from people they don't know who have no standing in the AMV world? If so, um. I've been misleading people. Whoops. (Also, I owe - going by my amv.org download stats - approximately 600 pieces of feedback to AMV makers. Double whoops.)
My second question is: is there a way to test this, to find out for sure what most AMV makers want? (In general, if I'm going to whine at people to do something, I like to make sure I've tried it myself first.) In live-action vidding, I could figure out what vidders actually wanted by sending them feedback myself, but that's because we have the fannish convention of replying to feedback, especially emailed feedback. I don't think AMVers have that same convention; I suspect that if I sent randomly selected AMV makers feedback on a video, they wouldn't email me back. So a test run wouldn't tell me much - I have to get responses to know how the vidders reacted. And posting a poll to vidding wouldn't get me responses from AMV makers. So, do you have any suggestions for ways to find out what the average AMV maker thinks about random, uninformed praise? I'd very much love to know, because this is a topic I've been pondering for years.
Reply
What people have to remember about the AMV community is that the great majority of Org members are just doing it for fun. They don't care about the contests, they don't care about the heirarchy, they don't care about my car, they don't care about my money, and some of them don't even care about getting constructive criticism (some of them can't even handle it). My impression of the average AMVer is pretty similar to my impression of the average fanfic writer.
I think the reason people forget this is because it's the minority, the people who DO really get into the whole competitive aspect, that tends to do most of the talking there.
I mean, personally, when I first got into AMVing, I was quite pleasantly surprised when my first few videos made bigger splashes and got more feedback than I'd ever expected them to...
Even limiting ourselves to talking about the so-called heirarchy for the time being: There are contests, Top 10% lists, top Star Scale score lists, etc. ... but the non-vidding audience participates just as much in moving videos up the ranks. Many AMV contests at conventions are decided by a vote of the viewing audience (the largest such example being Otakon), and most of the opinions and star scores that get videos moved up those lists come from audience-only Org members who have never made a video in their lives.
A-M-V.org is blocked at my office, so I can't pull up the stats right now, but it has historically been the case that the non-vidding members at the Org far outnumber the vidding ones.
I think a good bit of supporting evidence for my position that most AMVers would love to hear any feedback is the addition of the Quick Comments feature (what was it, two years ago that it was added? something like that), which was specifically designed to make it easier to leave feedback if you didn't feel like taking the time to write out a detailed opinion.
(Of course, just looking at the opinions I've gotten, most are no longer than a few lines each; it doesn't take much effort to dial in a bunch of 9s and 10s and gush a little about the video.)
> My second question is: is there a way to test this, to find out for sure what most AMV makers want? [...] I don't think AMVers have that same convention; I suspect that if I sent randomly selected AMV makers feedback on a video, they wouldn't email me back.
Well, they might not email you back, but there's a good chance they'd respond to your opinion (it would then show up in pink on the "My Opinions Given" page). Also, once you've left an opinion on a video, you can read all the other opinions left by other people on that video, so you can see if the creator usually responds, what kinds of responses s/he gives, etc.
Or, you could just make a post about this topic on the General AMV section of the forum. I'm sure it would spark some very lively discussion; I don't think that wanted vs. unwanted feedback is something we talk about a lot.
Reply
This is an excellent point, and one I should have considered but hadn't: the most visible do not necessarily represent the majority.
My impression of the average AMVer is pretty similar to my impression of the average fanfic writer.
From the outside, the AMV world looks so different from the FF world. (Also from the outside, the live-action vidding world looks a lot like the fan fiction world, but that's not surprising; they have a very tightly interlinked history.) And yet, well, obviously the two groups share a common interest in breaking copyright for fun, not profit, and sincere love of their chosen canon. One thing I don't see in the AMV world is the multilayered community aspect, but then, I wouldn't, would I? I'm not in the AMV community.
Hmmm. Makes sense. And the one thing (almost) every FF writer craves is feedback: someone saying, "Hey, I read this. I liked it." So, if the two groups are similar, then (almost) every AMV maker should crave reviews, even if they just say, "Hey, I watched this. I liked it."
Of course, that makes me wonder why you don't talk about it more, if it's something you all want. But I'm getting ahead of myself.
Of course, just looking at the opinions I've gotten, most are no longer than a few lines each; it doesn't take much effort to dial in a bunch of 9s and 10s and gush a little about the video.
True, and if that's acceptable, that's also totally doable. But, going by the Guide to Opinions, that's not acceptable - except, of course, going by the Guide to Opinions is me once again letting the most vocal speak for the entire community. There really is no way to figure out what people want but either testing them or asking them, is there?
Well, they might not email you back, but there's a good chance they'd respond to your opinion (it would then show up in pink on the "My Opinions Given" page). Also, once you've left an opinion on a video, you can read all the other opinions left by other people on that video, so you can see if the creator usually responds, what kinds of responses s/he gives, etc.
Don't take this wrong way, but I kind of hate you right now. You made two excellent suggestions, and they are totally workable, and that means my last objection to a project to figure out what, if anything, AMV makers want from viewers is totally blown out of the water.
In other words: oh my god, I'm going to have to grapple with the opinion form after all. I was sure I was excused from that! (And, guess what: I'm going to practice on you. After all, you're one of the only AMV makers I've ever heard actually speak the words "I want reviews.")
Or, you could just make a post about this topic on the General AMV section of the forum. I'm sure it would spark some very lively discussion; I don't think that wanted vs. unwanted feedback is something we talk about a lot.
Seriously? You guys don't talk about feedback? That's, like, one of the main topics of discussion in these parts; you can pretty much set your watch by feedback meta, and your calendar by feedback wank.
On the other hand, if you don't talk about it obsessively, that really explains some of the stranger interactions I've had with AMV makers since I started recommending AMVs.
So, let's see what happens if I ask about this on the boards. Spirited discussion? Grim silence? Should be interesting.
And, okay, opinions. I have them. Presumably I can give them.
Wish me luck.
Reply
Not quite sure what you mean by "multilayered community", but then, I'm not in the vidding or FF communities, so.
If you mean social stratification, some people do claim that it exists, and some people don't. Some claim that there's an "elite" group of friends that you have to get famous in order to get into, which usually prompts those who are perceived as being on that level to say that there is no such "inner circle" and that they really don't mind meeting other AMVers of all skill levels.
If you mean in terms of Internet presence, there is the Org, which was always meant to be a one stop shop -- a warehouse for every AMV in existence as well as a centralized hub for the community... but plenty of AMVers and AMV production groups have their own websites with their own fora, etc., and there are always people out there who haven't heard of any of them. (And then, in recent years, there's things like YouTube.)
> Of course, that makes me wonder why you don't talk about it more, if it's something you all want.
Well, there is a whole section of the forum devoted to exchanging opinions, but I think most of the people who start threads in there tend to be of the type that give long and detailed ops, so.
> But, going by the Guide to Opinions, that's not acceptable - except, of course, going by the Guide to Opinions is me once again letting the most vocal speak for the entire community.
I honestly don't think most Org members even know that guide exists. <^^ It's very rarely mentioned on the forum. Looking at the date, it was also probably written in a time when there were proportionately more of the more serious-type AMV editors frequenting the site. As AMVing got more mainstream in the years that followed, more of the casual fans and editors joined up. Slightly akin to any community that starts underground but becomes mainstream, like even the animé fandom in general... but I'm probably not the best one to talk about AMVing going mainstream, seeing as how I've only been in the community since 2003.
> Don't take this wrong way, but I kind of hate you right now. You made two excellent suggestions, and they are totally workable, and that means my last objection to a project to figure out what, if anything, AMV makers want from viewers is totally blown out of the water.
Good luck! ^_^ I'm always interested to see what kind of viewpoints and opinions arise out of discussions and experiments like this in the community...
Reply
What I meant by multilayered - okay. With fan fiction and live-action vidding, especially on LJ, fannish interaction becomes a springboard to personal interaction; we make friends, we post about our lives (well, except that I don't post about my life very much, but I am most definitely the outlier, there), we eventually interact on levels that have nothing to do with fannish activities. Eventually, we move on to other fandoms and other activities, but we tend to stay in touch with our old friends.
This multilayered interaction pattern has weird effects on the community as a whole - like, there's a lot of cross-pollination, a lot of weird ties, a lot of old buried wanks that get reaired every year or two. And it also has a major effect on how and why we leave feedback, how we respond to feedback, all that.
In general, I don't see that kind of interaction happening as much in AMV circles. But, as I said, I wouldn't; I'm not in those circles.
If you mean social stratification, some people do claim that it exists, and some people don't.
Okay, excuse me while I fall down laughing, because that is such a familiar topic to me. We have exactly that discussion all the time, except we call the inner circle folks Big Name Fans. People say that BNFs get more feedback (See? Everything ties into feedback here!), get their stories recommended more often, get friended more often, blah blah blah blah. In addition, we often hear that BNFs are trying to Rule Fandom. (They aren't. One of them once did, but these days trying to rule fandom would be like trying to rule several hundred thousand feral cats.) Or Ruin Fandom. Or Crush Newbies. All kinds of things. Those who are identified as BNFs, in turn, insist that a) there is no such thing as a BNF and b) if there is such a thing, they certainly aren't one.
It's good to know that some things are constants.
Well, there is a whole section of the forum devoted to exchanging opinions, but I think most of the people who start threads in there tend to be of the type that give long and detailed ops, so.
Frankly, I have always feared the forum, so I have no idea; my post today was my first venture into there. (Behold as I stalk the wiley anime vidder in its natural habitat!)
I honestly don't think most Org members even know that guide exists.
Seriously? Wow. It was the second thing I read once I joined. Although, really, that's not too surprising, given that the fan fiction and live-action vidding communities place so much more emphasis on feedback.
Well, that, plus I really like the concept of guides. By now I've read through most of the technical ones, too, and I will never ever make a vid of any kind.
As AMVing got more mainstream in the years that followed, more of the casual fans and editors joined up.
Interesting. Live-action vidding has seen that same kind of change, too; I tend to think in terms of old school and new school vidders, because although they both can make great vids (and they can both make totally sucky ones), the ones who started in, say, 2000 have very different outlooks and attitudes than the ones who started in just the last few years.
I'm probably not the best one to talk about AMVing going mainstream, seeing as how I've only been in the community since 2003.
In fannish years, I think that means you started about two full generations ago, so, hey, talk away.
I'm always interested to see what kind of viewpoints and opinions arise out of discussions and experiments like this in the community...
Obviously, I'm interested, too. Let's see what happens. And, since I can already tell that the eventual result of all this is going to be an essay of some description - may I quote you and/or link to these comments when I do write that essay? It will take me quite a while to get through the feedback portion of this project and on to the meta-writing portion, but I might as well ask while I have you here.
Reply
It probably happened more back in the days of the Off Topic forum, which Phade had originally started in order to help AMVers get to know each other better... come to think of it, I guess he was trying to promote exactly this kind of phenomenon. But in late 2003, I think it was, they closed that board due to abuse that was getting out of hand.
You should see some of the conversations that people have across their a-m-v.org journals... often bizarre, random, and having nothing to do with vidding. (And some complain that the journals were never meant to be used as a chat room...)
> Seriously? Wow. It was the second thing I read once I joined.
Well, for all I know, it may be more popular with those who don't talk on the fora. But you wouldn't believe how many people show up on the forum asking questions that prove they never bothered to read those guides. Not even the technical ones; you get stuff like "how do I make AMVs?" or "where do I download the videos?".
Feel free to quote and/or link; I don't think I've said anything too embarrassing. Heck, some of your readers might recognize my name (I've won my fair share of AMV awards) and think that I'm likely to know what I'm talking about. :P
Reply
In general, online, I've found that there are people who read to figure things out and people who post so they don't have to figure things out. This is why, in any community, you can have a giant red banner across every page reading "THE ANSWER IS RABBIT," and require people to click on a statement that reads "You know the answer is rabbit, right?" and you will still have posts reading, "Ive ben searchin 4ever WHATS THE ANSER."
Lurkers, on the other hand, can't ask questions; it would require them to come out of lurkerdom. So they read whatever is available and figure it out on their own. Or not.
So, on AMV, my guess is that the people who read the guides are the turtles like me, who avoid the forum and interaction in general. Which means that those guides are all the information those people get about the anime music video culture and community. It makes for a very different picture.
Reply
One of the hallmark differences between the generic vidding community (such as it is) and the AMV community is the amount of meta. The former is chock full of it to an extent I sometimes find difficult to believe. The latter tends not to discuss it in a general sense, except for the rare occasions where it crops up. Or some guy writes down his thoughts on it.
Anyway, the general opinion on feedback seems to be "that which helps me improve is good". Of course, my exposure is somewhat biased, but there you have it.
Reply
Oh my god, so true. This is likely because, well, the live-action vidders mostly came from (and often are still in) fan fiction based fandom, and if there's one thing fan fiction folks do more than write stories about our favorite characters, it's write about why and how we write stories about our favorite characters. And why and how everything else even tangentially related to writing, too.
Compared to fan fiction, live-action vidding is actually under meta'd, if I may coin a really horrible verb. Which means that to the average fan fiction fan who is used to reading metafandom, it's completely bewildering how little meta there is about AMVs.
Anyway, the general opinion on feedback seems to be "that which helps me improve is good". Of course, my exposure is somewhat biased, but there you have it.
*thoughtful*
Actually, the general opinion seems to break down into precisely the same categories, and in roughly the same ratios, as opinion about feedback in the fan fiction community. So you have:
- Feedback is good. Any feedback; it's nice to know people are watching and liking my work. And if people want to throw in some extra reactions or thoughts or helpful criticism, that is also good. Yay feedback!
- Feedback that helps me improve is good. Any feedback that says what did and didn't work is welcome, especially if said feedback is relatively rational and sane.
- Only concrit is good. I only want detailed feedback from someone who really knows his stuff, that will greatly improve my work - basically, a beta after the fact.
- Only praise is good. I don't want to hear any negative things about my thing that I work hard on, don't get paid for, and love very much. (Note: no one seems to be copping to having this opinion, but people are reporting unhappy encounters with many others who do have this opinion. This attitude, and its prevalence in all fanworks communities, is what has driven fan fiction from the now-legendary Letter of Comment - basically, an ex post facto beta - to the LJ comment: "Ooo, yay, loved it, especially [quote line] and [quote line]. Awesome!" With the corollary that if you can't say something nice, you don't say anything, except in certain defined circumstances.)
- Whatever. I don't care. I have no interest in comments, feedback, or opinions.
The problem endlessly discussed in general feedback meta is the conflict between numbers 3 and 4. If you send concrit to someone who only wants praise, you have a) just wasted an hour of your time and b) pissed someone off. This isn't what you were hoping to do at all. (If you praise someone who just wants concrit, you've wasted only a few minutes of your time and his, which is a lot better. Plus, people have other ways of getting concrit (betas!), which is why LJ has become a mostly praise-only feedback community. It's the route of least wank, basically.)And the problem endlessly discussed in vid feedback meta is the Viewer Problem. Most viewers don't have the tools and/or confidence to provide 3, and some won't even be able to provide 2, but everyone can provide 1 and 4. So the question becomes: what is better than nothing? Is any feedback (aside from trollishness and asshole comments) better than none? Or is there a minimum standard below which the feedback is worthless, or worse than worthless, and thus a waste of everyone's time?
My original thesis, based on some stuff I outlined to Scintilla above, was that there was indeed a minimum standard, and that in the AMV world that minimum standard was quite high - so high that a casual non-vidding viewer could never meet it. Scintilla's argument was, in effect, that that was untrue, that the minimum standard for AMV feedback was the same as for feedback anywhere (comprehensible and not trollish, basically).
For my next trick, I'm going to try leaving some feedback and see what happens.
(And now you see how come there is all this meta about live-action vidding and fan fiction: the people involved in it, even peripherally, cannot shut up. (Guilty!))
Reply
Well, there is meta (by which I figure you mean "amvs about amving/amvers") but it may not be immediately obvious unless you've been digging around in AMVs for a while. Hell, AWA's grand prize Expo winner this year was Brian's Song, and the whole thing is an enormous in-joke. Most of the meta stuff, though, is disguised so that most viewers will still think it funny without understanding it. Similarly, dokidoki's Hello Fairy video is actually a meta commentary about the "Hell" trend, but is pretty hilarious in all other respects too. (See also doki's Sunshine Lollipops and RRRrrrr.) The "Hell" vids themselves could be considered somewhat meta. And, of course, there's plenty of "meta" commentary about anime trends in amvs... jokes on similarities between shows, the predictability of stories, the lameness of it's fans. (Don't mean to be boosting Doki so much, he's just who came to mind in the "meta" category.)
(And one more meta vid I just have to plug, 'cause I'm in it...this one.)
On the other topics... I dunno what to tell you about the comments. As a contest director I figured out a while ago that it would be a conflict for me to do extensive commenting on vids I might eventually have to judge, so I bowed out of that aspect. I think your impression about the complexity of the comments desired might be true to a larger extent in AMVs than for vidders, largely because the AMV community expanded so rapidly to enormous dimensions, and yet remained largely centralized. That means when a really popular vid does the rounds the editor can just get mobbed with people gushing over the vid, with very little interesting to say. Then, since everyone's looking in their direction, everyone sees when they pay much more attention to someone with a detailed review instead of a simple "good work" comment.
However, back when I was doing feedback, I found that AMVers who hadn't made it into the spotlight were very appreciative of my reviews, would go back and forth a couple of times in discussion, and beam in their journals about getting a review. Our version of your "big names" may be doing vids with a more specific audience in mind (specific amvers & friends) while newcomers are more apt to throw their vid out into the world, hoping to attract any attention they could get.
As for elitists... yeah that seems pretty universal. In AMVs it's mostly that the "old schoolers" were a pretty tightly-knit group for three or four years when stuff like the contests started coming out. Time allowed for drama & personality conflicts to fragment it, but more importantly the flood of new blood all wanting to be best buds with the "old schoolers" became difficult to deal with on an individual basis. Regional cliques formed, pseudo-factions broke out on the message boards, and we oldest and most bitter of amvers started retiring. It's not really elitism, it's just who we're good friends with.
Reply
Well, there is meta (by which I figure you mean "amvs about amving/amvers") but it may not be immediately obvious unless you've been digging around in AMVs for a while.
Oh, good point. I should've specified "written meta." Because, of course, AMVs have a fantastic amount of meta-in-the-form-of-AMVs - they just don't seem to have the same number of essays about AMV making, and the AMV world, and and and. (Live-action vidders do meta vids, too, but the difference in terms of meta essays - well, unless I'm missing a major source of AMV meta writing, we're talking about many orders of magnitude.)
This is one of those fannish language disconnects, I think; in this neck of fandom, when we say "meta," we definitely mean essays unless we tag another noun on there, like "meta vid" or whatever. (And, although we have vids that are commenting on vidding, the most famed meta vid is actually a vid commenting on being a fan.) I keep forgetting that there's a fannish jargon barrier.
I think your impression about the complexity of the comments desired might be true to a larger extent in AMVs than for vidders, largely because the AMV community expanded so rapidly to enormous dimensions, and yet remained largely centralized.
So, basically, comments on AMVs are, at least in that respect, a lot more like comments on fan fiction - the pattern you're describing is precisely what's happened as fan fiction fandom has exploded over the past six years. (Only the last three of which I was around for; I'm relatively new here.)
But, hmm. There seems to be less of a cultural directive in AMVs about appropriate feedback and comment behavior. Even though we argue it endlessly, there are definite unspoken rules about how you deal with feedback and comments (not to mention about a dozen massive, ongoing, never-to-be-resolved debates, and by "debates," I of course mean "vicious fights, often with severe casualities"). AMV makers don't seem to have a more-or-less shared general consensus about when and how you should leave opinions/comments/whatever or how you should respond to them.
Interesting.
It's not really elitism, it's just who we're good friends with.
Uh, yeah. We've got that, too. People go through stages in any hobby, and there's a time, usually when you're newer, when you're expanding your circle of acquaintances and making good friends, and then you come to a point where you don't have the time to do that anymore, so you pretty much just stick with the friends you have, adding one here and there when you can. And then, if you're one of the popular writers or vidders or whatever, people point and shout "clique" and "BNF."
Oh, fandom. We're so consistent in our wankiness. (But at least in AMVs you're probably spared the "mean girls from high school" discussions.)
Reply
Oh, sorry about that... I probably should have mentioned that the LJ multifandom RP community campfuckudie's OOC community, campersfuckoff, had an AMV-pimping post, and somebody linked to both of your AMV recommendation posts, partially for the AMVs but also because they were good reading.
Reply
Heh. I followed dwchang who followed Scintilla. Dunno how dwchang found you.
they just don't seem to have the same number of essays about AMV making, and the AMV world, and and and.
Hmm... have you been through the "journal" function on the .org? Is that the sort of thing you're talking about? Or is it more a matter of circulated essays?
But, hmm. There seems to be less of a cultural directive in AMVs about appropriate feedback and comment behavior.
Heh. With all the highschoolers and teenagers we get flooding in, it's hard to keep anything like a "cultural consensus." If y'all manage it, my hat's off to you. I'm feeling more and more like the cranky old guy shouting at the kids on his lawn, but my impression is that the hobby has very suddenly skewed younger as I've gotten older, and brought a lot of teen angst & HS bullshit with it. On the other hand, it's also skewed more international, so you take the good with the bad. (New perspectives are helping to revitalize the creativity.) There's also a much higher turnover rate in the hobby lately... AMVing has become more like cosplay in that it's something fans consider they have to do qualify as real fans... rather than something a fan will do if they enjoy it.
People go through stages in any hobby...
Well, the difference is that there really was "a" group to start. The first "AMVer group." The very first AMVers (mid 80's on) all vaugely knew one another through the daisy-chain tape-trading circles that had cropped up in the 70's. But they really didn't know one another on a one-on-one basis. The advent of the AMV contests in the mid-to-late 90's, however, meant a place to go and show your work and actually MEET other AMVers. (Plus one of the contest heads made a massive effort to get 'em all down to Atlanta eventually.) And they, the ones that didn't burn out in a year, were a managable number... twenty or thirty people at most. Everyone really did get to know one another one-on-one, and formed a single all-inclusive group of friends who stayed together & hit all the cons for about four years. It was no exaggeration to say that you knew all the AMVers on the East or West coast. That's the group most AMVers refer to as the "old schoolers." The gradually increasing flood that the mailing list, ftp, then the website brought overwhelmed that ability. And then the trolls showed up & any pretense of our hobby being an "all for one" utopia blew up. (Hell, I could put a date to when that happened.) Anyrate, I kinda go into this here if you're at all interested.
But at least in AMVs you're probably spared the "mean girls from high school" discussions.
Well... I'm not familiar with the term. What does it mean?
Reply
The link I'd been given before was a "reply thread" that only showed a dozen or so replies. I've probably repeated half the stuff others have said above, trying to be helpful.
Sorry for the repetition.
Reply
Hmm... have you been through the "journal" function on the .org? Is that the sort of thing you're talking about? Or is it more a matter of circulated essays?
From what I've seen (limited), the "journal" function appears to be used (by those who use it at all) kind of like we use our LJs - a combination of thinky posts, personal posts, random personal messages, and stuff relating to our various fanworks.
When I say meta, I mean - ummmm. Okay, the first example would be metafandom, which is a newsletter. (And I'm going to define that, just in case you don't know what it is - I'm trying to remember our jargon doesn't always mesh. A newsletter is a LJ comm where a small group of editors rounds up all the relevant links for a given fandom or fannish topic and posts them on a daily, semiweekly, or weekly basis; the vidding equivalent is, right now, veni_vidi_vids, where you can see all the live-action vids, meta, news, etc. gathered from around LJ and beyond.) So, metafandom rounds up all the links of people writing about fandom: essays, rants, whatever. Essentially, whenever fans are talking about some aspect of fannishness (in public, on LJ), metafandom is there.
Another example would be a post I linked Scintilla to, up above: this one. This is a pretty typical fannish meta post, aside from the fact that I was a non-vidder talking about vidding. (Well, and also I can't shut up. Some meta is that long. But some people - people other than me - manage to come to a conclusion before their audience experiences verbiage-related brain damage, and so their meta is shorter.)
So I guess the short answer is "circulated essays," but it's important to know that most fans write them, and most fans read them, and there is a lot of discussion of them. And we write these essays on every topic possible. In extreme cases, we go the acafan route and publish anthologies of academic analysis. Which is just so much meta, except published under real names. (And, you know, with all the trimmings of academic writing - APA style, citations, etc.)
As a community, we really really like writing about ourselves. And what we do.
With all the highschoolers and teenagers we get flooding in, it's hard to keep anything like a "cultural consensus." If y'all manage it, my hat's off to you.
We manage it mostly by having a bifurcated community - if you go to fanfiction.net, you will find a group of very different people. If I was going to describe the typical ff.net denizen, she'd be about 14 years old. She'd write stories in which every Gundam Wing or Harry Potter character falls in love with an original character, who is a girl, and who is better at everything than all the characters. (Smarter! A better fighter! Nicer! Prettier! Etc.!) She has a tragic past. And she has cerulean orbs instead of eyes.
These stories are typically not spellchecked or proofread.
They make those of us, even the teenagers (and there are many, but most of ours know how to write), on LJ either laugh or cry.
The equivalent to an ff.netter in the AMV world would be - okay. He'd be 14. He'd make a Naruto vid set to Linkin Park. He would use downloaded fansubs as his source, so the video quality was incredibly crappy. And he'd leave the subtitles in, all over the place. He wouldn't compress the audio. He'd have stray frames everywhere, so watching it would be kind of like having an eye tic. He'd leave in random lip movements. And his information section would read like this (in toto): "this took liek 2 FUCKIN HOURS to do!!!!11 and naruto ownz so you better leave a good opinion!!!!"
We call ff.net the Pit of Voles for a very good reason. AMV.org kind of contains its own Pit of Voles, which has to suck.
Continued in part 2.
Reply
Ah. Film school essays. Gotcha. (Kidding, a little.) It's kinda odd to me for such stuff to be organized enough to circulate. AMVers used to conduct something sorta similar, expounding and explaining on their favs, trends, ideas, etc. on the Journal system on the .org. (There's a device that showed you when your "friends" last updated their journal so you could check on 'em. Weird, stilted, but fairly elaborate discussions happend simultaneously in multi-part across journals in the absence of a "comment" function.) Prior to that, there was some "meta" discussion throughout the amv mailing list when there was a controllable number of people. Upon the appearance of livejournal, though, the more interesting stuff collapsed as the more determined writers jumped ship for the better functionality. I tried to maintain my stuff across both for a few years, but it got tiring.
Now? Hmm. I suppose there might be some meta stuff on the boards. Wouldn't know. You couldn't pay me to go back in there and look. I'll do my fandom/flick/comic reviews out here, thank you very much.
She'd write stories in which every Gundam Wing or Harry Potter character falls in love with an original character, who is a girl, and who is better at everything than all the characters.
Oh, I know what a "Mary Sue" is. Or, more recently, a "Rose Tyler."
Reply
Leave a comment