Right, I don’t get on my soapbox much, but this niggle has been bubbling away in my brain for quite a while now. See, when you write a music blog, you often find yourself on the look-out for new music videos to talk nonsense about.
Now you’d think, would you not, that in these modern times, when most record companies have more or less got their head around YouTube, that they’d be pretty swift at getting fresh new videos by big acts onto their accounts.
The benefits of this are obvious: the artist gets their new video out there in an “official” capacity, while the record company gets exposure since the page featuring the video can be branded. Fans and bloggers with RSS feeds can see when the video has hit the net and can be assured that, since it’s come through official channels, it should be a high quality version and not some rip from MTV.
Last week showed just how far from this state of affairs we currently are.

Thursday May 15th: Stereogum post about the new Coldplay video, “Violet Hill”. Shortly afterwards, the video is no longer available. One of those scary legal notices can be seen from Coldplay’s record company, EMI.
Friday May 16th: The video appears on YouTube again. Once again it’s been posted by a fan, not through the EMI or Coldplay accounts. Meanwhile, Coldplay’s official YouTube account posts an alternate version of the video, which features politicians dancing to “Violet Hill” thanks to hilarious editing.
Monday May 17th: As of today, the original Stereogum post has the video again - only this time it’s a version from Daily Motion, and once again doesn’t appear to have come through official channels.
Now, there’s a chance I’m missing something here, and these “fans” are actually people in the employ of Coldplay’s record label who are trying to create some kind of viral buzz. But would a brand new Coldplay video need any help from viralosity? It’s bloody Coldplay!
All of which leads me to ask: if the video was ready for release, as it clearly was, why not, um, release it? Put it on the EMI YouTube page? The offical Coldplay YouTube page? Coldplay’s website? Coldplay’s MySpace?
The alternate video, clearly intended as some kind of comment at buffoonish politicians, etc, lost any weight it may have had once it crawled out behind what everyone knows is going to be the official video.
EMI removing the “Violet Hill” video once a site of Stereogum’s rep has covered it - and then not bothering to release the official version to replace it - seems self-defeating to me. Blogs won’t bother posting an unofficial version if they know it’s going to be taken down, rendering their post pointless.
And, by the time the official version of the video has been released, it will be old news - as we all know, when it comes to music on the internet things move pretty fast. People will have moved onto something else.
So how about it, record companies? If you create YouTube accounts, howzabout keeping them updated and treating them like the kind of places people actually visit?
You know the most annoying part about all this? I don’t even really like Coldplay.

UPDATE: Naturally, the day after I wrote this, the video hit the net. But not the EMI account - the Parlophone one. Sigh.

Possibly related:

1. Woolworths give up on long-forgotten “compact disc” format for singles; record companies seek new licences to print money

2. The Parlophone Laughing Record - scaring listeners since 1925

3. Hear Coldplay’s Viva La Vida first and for free on MySpace

4. Coldplay to give away music, performances in exchange for your love

5. Nickelback’s lumbering climb to the top of the charts could break record, hearts

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Posted by Stuart Waterman on Monday May 19th, 2008 at 10:40 am