Talk:List of one-shot music videos

Untitled

I think this subject is relevant. In the business of video and film production it's a common expression with no ambiguity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fubbi (talk • contribs) 18:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This should probably be renamed to the industry standard terminology, "Continuous Take". 206.248.156.124 (talk) 01:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

List to Prose

Given the prose tag, I suggest that this article be condensed so that there are a few notable examples included in a paragraph, with a full list on the new page List of One shot Music Videos. Kat Malone (talk) 20:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Goldfrapp's "Happiness"

I'm removing "Happiness" by Goldfrapp. Although the video gives the appearance of being shot in a continuous take, it is clearly not - the members of the band (especially the singer) appear as different characters throughout, and you can see the day getting darker. Closer inspection reveals the points where the camera pans past an automobile, a telephone booth, etc., providing a convenient point to mask the blending of each take. Golfhaus (talk) 01:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Kylie's come into my world

if goldfrapp's happiness has been removed for not being a single take and rather having markers where it could be edited together then this video should be removed also as it also appeared to be 1 continual shhot but in fact the parts where kylie runs under the ladder and goes past/swings round the lamp post were used as pointers for editing also and it was not done in 1 take, even though it looked like it, if you watch it carefully you can see it was edited —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.216.100 (talk) 01:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

No way is this a clear example of a one shot as there is post processing to add the multiple Kylies... ++Lar: t/c 03:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Some Removals

Removing Madonna - Bitch, I'm Madonna It is clearly not one shot. At second 00:37, 1:37 you can se a cut to a completely different scene, plus several other cuts around 2:30. Removing U2's Sweetest Thing and OKGO's "This too shall Pass" The Sweetest thing is three shots and disguised by Lens flares (the camera tilts up towards sun causing the flare and ending the shot) This too shall pass is at least two shots (Pause at the blue curtain the lights through the curtain show the camera orientation to have changed between the two shots) There are other areas where the machine's movement is obscured and the camera heavily defocuses giving the possibility of a shot change. - see aftermath of Piano falling Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

You need to show evidence from reliable sources, against the existing evidence that assert it is one shot, to remove these. Eg, the OK Go video - they have stated it is one shot even if there are points that appear to be in question (but otherwise still leave doubt). You cannot state because of your original research that these aren't one shots. --MASEM (t) 17:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Cite Source for U2 Removal - Channel 4 - 100 Greatest Pop Videos - U2 Sweetest thing #33 - Director discusses the fact that it is 3 shots covered over by lens flares. [1] Link to program details don't have link to video clip exact section of program but it *is* there.

OKGO don't claim that the film was made in one shot - they claim that the machine was built so that it could be possible to take it in one shot. Citing the video itself [2] go to 2:27 and watch frame by frame the overhead light (and the track lighting) in the next shot can be seen shining in one position whilst the curtains are closed (and remains there as they open) but the edge of the curtain is used as a mask to hide the start of the second shot where the light is in a completely different position. Neither the light nor the camera move in the intervening frames so unless you're citing magic it isn't one shot it's a minimum of two. Honestly check it yourself and if I'm wrong I'll let this one stand but U2 is definitely 3 shots. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 00:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Independent Citable reference for OKGO showing the cuts [3] -now reediting article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuart.Jamieson (talk • contribs) 00:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't call that reliable. However - it has been confirmed there is at least one cut by the curtain and affirmed by the people who made it was done to splice two sides of two successful runs for better viewability - eg both halves were still one-shot takes. This still qualifies the overall nature of the video as one shot, despite the fact there are cuts. People are still going to call this "one take" since the majority of the video are single one take shots. --MASEM (t) 00:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Also will point out that regardless what you may think of the rube goldberg one, the other video for this song (the marching band one) is one shot (and has yet to be disproven as one). --MASEM (t) 00:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Haven't fully checked the marching one but at first glance the Lens Flare at 2:00 hides one just as they are used in the U2 Video (speaking of which reverting my last edit also restored this which is confirmed 3 shot) The cut is required to hide the Steadicam operator moving from the ground to the crane for the final shots - The route he takes would make this impossible without a cut.

For the Rude Goldberg I could shoot a whole Movie with 30 one shot takes and splice them together to look like POV jump shots and it wouldn't by any stretch of the imagination be considered a one shot movie. The same is true of this, there were three continuous shots made and whilst they admit to the curtain one [4] on being directly asked about it - they avoid admitting to any others it doesn't rule out their existence. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Also the Definition given in the lead-in is "consists of action, continuous in time and space" by making these splices the shots are not continuous in time or space so fail to meet the criteria of their own article. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 01:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Going to make a bold edit to compromise, Hope you will support this decision Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I can agree that a mistaken one-shot video section can make sense. However, to be there, there has to be citable evidence of the break (as well as reliable sources that assert the video was one shot); the U2 and OK Go Rube Goldberg ones do, but you cannot assert for the Ok Go Marching Band one that because there's a lens flare that there could be a break, without reliable sources to back that statement up; that's original research. I'm not saying it is assuredly one shot but the sourced weight in favor of being one-shot rather than not. --MASEM (t) 15:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Citeable evidence can be the source itself Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources; for instance you don't need to cite a third party to prove that the first line of Moby Dick is "Call me Ishmael" because the source itself can be cited. In this case I can categorically cite timeline position 2:00'22 on the video shows a crossfade between two shots. in terms of Third party sources.I also did a quick Google and many pages say something along the lines of "One video has a live Marching Band and the other is a One Shot video of Rube Goldberg Machine" putting the focus on the belief in a Rube Goldberg one shot and ignoring any belief that Marching band is One shot. In fact only the copy of the marching Video on Amazon was tagged with "One Shot" nowhere else that I can find mentions it. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You can cite the source for clearly obvious things (like the first line of Moby Dick), but you cannot synthesize beyond that without additional sources (see WP:SYNTH). That crossfade is very non-obvious (though yes, if they were stitching two parts together, that would be the obvious place to do it), and thus any statement contrary to the assertion of "one shot" needs to be backed by sources. (Now, I am pretty sure more than just amazon has said the marching band video is one-shot, but I will have to look) --MASEM (t) 17:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

If you use a player with frame advance the crossfade is obvious because at 2:00'22 given there are twice the number of trees in shot than there are several frames before or several frames after. This is because both shots are slightly out of alignment. That frame difference is evidence enough that the cross fade occurs. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly the type of analysis that falls under unallowed synthesis. It may be obvious to you, but to the casual viewer it is not. --MASEM (t) 17:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

No Synthesis, is drawing a conclusion by combining two sources to form completely original research. Citing a small section of a larger work to summarize is fine, provided it is referenced in a way that doesn't change the nature/meaning of the reference. So even a casual User can look up the cited reference (in this case the frame in comparison to neighbouring frames) and confirm it shows what is cited. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Whether it's called synthesis or not, it is original research. The average person, even with a viewer that can proceed frame by frame, would have to be pointed out that the doubling of the number of trees for a short bit implies they dissolved-cut to the second shot at that point. Knowing what dissolve-cuts and other video editing-tricks are not common knowledge, and thus asserting it exists, without a reliable third-party source to back that up is original research. Note that I'm not denying that this video fails to be oneshot, but that we can't say that ouselves, we need a source for it. --MASEM (t) 00:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I won't reply to the matter till I've discussed Wikipedia policy with other editors but what you appear to be stating is that we should put the in untrue information (found at Amazon and others) because it can be cited with an unreliable source rather than true information for which there is no (as yet) citeable reference. It would be better to let the comment sit with "Citation needed" in order to encourage editors to find external citations for it and generally improve the article - and lets not forget that I am citing my edits unlike the 74 One Shots which are not yet cited and are frequently errant. And BTW the YouTube reference you removed is reliable - "YouTube videos can be used as a secondary source if they can be traced to a reliable publisher." Reliable Sources. Freddie Wong is notable in his own right as a film maker, director and producer (and guitar hero player) but can be considered a reliable publishing source for video production techniques. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 08:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Note that I've taken out the marching band video altogether because I can't find any other source that calls it one-shot, yet, so being on the list in the first place is questionable. As to the youtube source and Freddie Wong, there is no evidence of him being an expert in the field, thus making him as a reliable source questionable even for video techniques. Maybe he's known within a small group, but if we're talking about video editing techinques, I would be expecting an expert to be someone that has created professional music videos and the like, not a skilled amateur. This would be the same if he blogged it or had the youtube video; it's not the media that's the issue. Because we've already got a sourced fact from the people that made the video that there's at least one cut, we don't need to add more unless more reliable sources point to the other splits. --MASEM (t) 13:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Freddie Wong's has a record in the film Industry [5] and not as some lowly runner or PA so continually referring to him as an amateur rather than as a professional demeans him - OK it's not work on Music Videos it's on Short and Feature Films but I think you get the Idea. The point is that he as a professional identified another cut which was not mentioned in the other source and should be mentioned. The whole list is populated by videos that no reliable source would call One-shot yet when I started to clean out you told me that I should be citing why they weren't one shots; in reality anything that doesn't' already have a reliable source saying it is OSV should be cleared out. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 16:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

To be in this list, the video should have a citation from an RS that calls it one shot. Once in the list, if another RS confirms it to not be one-shot, it should be moved to "mistaken for one-shot" videos below. So yes, we're still looking for sources, but again, we need reliable sources.

The reason why I don't believe Freddie Wong to be reliable is that "reliable" is that he has no connection to a reliable source for video editing or the like, or to the band. He would fall what's considered a self-published source, which are not necessarily bad, but they do need to be scrutinized. Has he had a history of finding this type of stuff before? Even if an amateur, is he noted from other sources as an expert (and not just word of mouth from his fans?) Basically, he fails meeting several of the aspects of what we need in reliable sources. Is his information wrong? Likely not, but as no one else has confirmed it, we can't including unreliable source claims in there. --MASEM (t) 02:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Masem, I'm not sure what you're trying to do here. Initially I tried to remove errant videos for which Wikipedia:Burden was with me. these videos were listed here without cited sources and no reliable source could be found for either. You reverted them. So I acceded to your wishes and provided reliable sources even though I did not have to. You reverted them again - the reason you gave was there are lots of sources which call them OSV - even though these are *unreliable* and the sources closest to the relevant videos i.e; the creators - admit they were not OSV. You also made the claim that another video (for the same song) was OSV (which it isn't and has no reliable source to say it is) and so the video should stay in the list. So I make a Bold Edit to put forward a way of explaining why these videos are not OSV (again this is something I should not have to do as the Burden of evidence is on those adding to the list not those removing from it). Now you're making further edits claiming unreliable sources for things which are substantially more reliable than any other entry in this article - while I believe you are acting in good faith, I am finding your edits detrimental to the overall article and early on they were definitely based on a pre-conceived notion rather than citable facts. I plan to leave this article for a few days but to come back to it for a complete re-write removing the list entirely and providing better composed citable references. If you are interested in actually improving this article and not just this nitpicking of my changes (you haven't made any changes that are not directly related to mine), then hopefully we can work together in a spirit of co-operation. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

John Fogerty's "The Old Man Down the Road" is not a true one-shot video either. It's meant to be taken as a one-shot video with a certain amount of "suspension of disbelief", if you will, but it has 3 or 4 edits that aren't that difficult to spot. Steve Perry's "Foolish Heart" is also a one-shot but it's all one slow zoom/pan with none of the kind of action portrayed in some of the videos listed here. mwalimu59 (talk) 20:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

If you can make a citation in that regard, either third party or simply a time reference of the edits then move it into the "mistaken for one shot section" and I'll happily support it. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Remove the list

This article should either be a description of one-shot music videos, or split off into "List of one shot music videos." Angryapathy (talk) 18:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

One Shot or Long Take.

O.K. I've been making improvements to a copy of the article in my Userspace and trying to convert the article to prose and pare out and identify false assertions of On-Shot.

What I'm questioning is how do we deal with videos that are heavily modified in post production?

Some of these are already included in the list Kylie's - Come into my world for instance. Obviously we work using reliable sources and though some sources would declare these kind of videos "One Shot" when it is doubtful they are.

In OKGO's video for "End Love" (not currently included in the article) [6] the claim of one shot was originally made by one of the directors Jeff Lieberman [7] "Oh and don’t forget, it’s one continuous camera shot.” When he was called on it, he confirmed "It's one take, not one shot." and that enough frames were removed from the 18 hour take to allow OKGO to have toilet breaks and in fact eat food - also three cameras rather than a single camera were used seamlessly.

Whilst Come into my world is created using one long take it's clear that the action is not "continuous in time and space" because much of the action is repeated from earlier in take and composited digitally. On this basis I would have to consider any source identifying the video as One Shot to be unreliable in it's identification and either strike from the article or use a source like [8] to explain how the effect was achieved and move the video to the "Videos Mistaken for One Shot" video. A similar video (whose entry I recently removed from the list) would be Kanye West's Power which whilst citable as one shot [9] (not the most reliable source but the first I found) is clearly not continuous in space because it digitally composites other elements (which may have been shot in the same take but it seems unlikely) copying them, mirroring them and moving them as required. Kanye's Element does appear to be continuous but nothing around him is.

Any feedback on how best to deal with situations like this is welcomed.

Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite

Have moved my current draft rewrite to Talk:One shot (music video)/Draft The Plan is to completely delete the Music video examples section once some (but probably not all - just key examples) are integrated into the prose of the History of One Shot Music Videos section. Already some entries have been removed after integration however some entries have been added to the article since I started work on this draft which may need to be taken account of. The Proponents section should be converted to prose as well. Once the draft is a bit more rounded the current article should be moved to List of one shot music videos and the Draft moved into the main space. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 15:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Virtual Insanity?

Does it count as One Shot? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.250.170 (talk) 05:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

At least a reference to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.250.170 (talk) 05:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Examples

The examples list is too long. We need to reduce it to a few significant examples. How do we determine which are significant? (Or should we go with the suggestion above and split off the examples as a separate list article? i.e. List of one shot music videos ) RJFJR (talk) 14:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Wannabe

The idea that "Wannabe" (by the Spice Girls) is one-shot is nothing but an urban legend. It has been refuted by more than one production member, including Geri Halliwell in her autobiography "If Only" (p. 309). Grand Dizzy (talk) 22:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

"Girls Like You" notes

Funny how "Girls Like You"'s notes says "Includes cameo from Ellen DeGeneres when there are 25 other "girls" in it too! Qoushik (talk) 20:43, 15 September 2022 (UTC)