Jump to content

Talk:Lip dub

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lip-Sync vs Lipdub

[edit]

Continuing from an earlier discussion, would some professional videos by artists on [MTV] be considered early forms of lip dub, since it is not really lip syncing. I believe lip syncing to be the original artist singing over a pre-recorded track of their own material. And lip dub to be anyone other than the original artist. To that effect, Milli Vanilli and the woman from C+C music factory would be lip dubbers, vice lip sync-ers.

The MTVish videos I was referring to would be:

  1. George Michael - "Freedom" Various supermodels lip dubbing the song
  2. Johnny Cash - "God's Gonna Cut You Down" Various Celebrities lip dubbing the song

 immunity  talk  07:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Immunity - the key difference to me between lip sync and lip dub are: (1) the amateur nature of the recordings, (2) the absence of passing of the recording as a true performance, and (3) the incorporation of video. Originally, lip syncing meant a performance that involves one singing to a pre-recorded audio track, intending to pass of the performance as real. It has since been lessened to mean karaoke and many other versions, that are clearly not meant to be professional. Still, I would consider a lip dub to be distinctive because it requires an amateur performance and it is on video. Also, the performance does not try to pass of its own voice as the real performance, rather the audio is dubbed over theirs. (Still need to view the videos to determine if this distinctions covers them) -- The Robot Champion  talk to me  03:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
right, but if you read the first statement I said, it would be a earlier form. Maybe even a tangent or something we need to class totally different. As I believe lip syncing to be more of the original artist miming their own recording.  immunity  talk  05:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original Video

[edit]

I found this article, Numa Numa, and it makes me think that this is one of the first lip dub's that went popular. Is this considered a lip dub? The article calls it a lip sync...-- The Robot Champion  talk to me  03:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 immunity  talk  05:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ya, numa is definitely the first and most popular lip dub.  immunity  talk  05:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Numa numa is not a lipdub since it lacks the crowd element. But it may be seen as a predecessor to the lipdub movement because of the use of Internet and light video recording equipment (webcam). But it is definitely fun. --Alex Zivoder (talk) 13:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
sorry for editing your comments guys, I just added some indent because it was quite hard to read your opinions --Smumdax !? 20:57, 20 december 2009 (UTC)

Original Video 2

[edit]

The first time the term was coined is for this video : http://www.vimeo.com/123498 Just a simple playback and he is alone ! I know many older videos on the internet doing the same thing. The term was coined long before he filmed many people doing this together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.171.32.248 (talk) 23:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How to manage the List of Lip dubs

[edit]

The list of lip dubs which are added is growing a lot, and may end up growing much more. Maybe we should create a table, so that we will only include fields such as Month/Year/University or company/ Country / Small comment of why itis remarkable/ URL to the video /. Table can be later moved to a new article, of list type, if needed.--Jordiferrer (talk) 21:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I took former content, most of which a few deleted, and reformatted it per your suggestion which is proper and directly relevant to this article.
Opponents would add
to Regular expression, delete the "External links" section out of all articles, and would disallow the above content anywhere on Wikipedia in any form. It'll take a super-human effort from someone who cited many Wikipedia policies to get this content to stay, but I think the table is, again, directly relevant to this article about, well, lipdubs. Lipdub links aren't linkfarms because they're no "Mere collections of external links" and "There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article". We need not the New York Times to cite a YouTube video to justify it. It's commonly known that YouTube hosts videos whose uploaders can generally be identified.
I also propose re-adding the below section which was deleted 23:18, 15 2010-12

External Links

I expect the usuals to oppose, so step. Richardc020 (talk) 06:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Levs, Josh (2009-09-27). "CNN Transcripts". CNN Sunday Morning. Retrieved 2011-02-05.
  2. ^ a b "Shorewood Lip Dub - Rachel Ray Show.mov". 2010-01-21. Retrieved 2011-02-05.
  3. ^ World Records Academy: "Most people participating in a lip dub - City of Vic sets world record"
  4. ^ Bas, Guillem (2010-10-24). "El Lip dub per la independència a Vic bat el rècord mundial". Retrieved 2011-02-05.
  5. ^ "Vic bat el rècord mundial amb l'enregistrament d'un "lip dub" per la independència". 3/24. 2010-10-31. Retrieved 2011-02-05.
  6. ^ a b "You know what a "lip dub"?". Catalonia, Spain. 2010-10-31. Retrieved 2011-02-05.
  7. ^ http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xaxb0j_lipdub-emlyon-2009_creation
  8. ^ University LipDub Team. "The idea". universitylipdub.com.
  9. ^ May, Brian (2010-02). "Letters". Retrieved 2011-02-05. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  10. ^ "Vueling Together". 2010-01-07.
  11. ^ "Hey Soul Sister - Lipdub MV - CYLC 2010 Geng Ban". Dallas, Texas: Congressional Youth Leadership Council Dallas-Fort Worth. 2010-08-05. Retrieved 2011-02-05.
  12. ^ http://www.lavanguardia.es/cultura/noticias/20100610/53943175214/la-upf-presenta-su-lipdub-el-mas-multitudinario-grabado-en-el-mundo.html
  13. ^ http://www.timescolonist.com/entertainment/Spain+UVic+makes+heck+YouTube+video+Victoria+UVic+will+counter/3331045/story.html
  14. ^ {[cite-web|url=http://www.gvsu.edu/lipdub%7Ctitle=GVSU Lipdub|accessdate=2011-02-05}}
  15. ^ "NTU Art Festival". Retrieved 2011-02-05.
  16. ^ "Lip Dub Guelph". Retrieved 2011-02-05.
  17. ^ {[cite-web|url=http://arizona.diamondbacks.mlb.com/news/press_releases/press_release.jsp?ymd=20101214&content_id=16318720&vkey=pr_ari&fext=.jsp&c_id=ari%7Ctitle=D-backs become first professional sports team to record Lip Dub video|publisher=MLB|first=Arizona Diamondbacks Press Office|date=2010-12-14|accessdate=2011-02-05|location=Phoenix, Arizona}}
  18. ^ "High School Lip Dub 2010". Retrieved 2011-02-05.
  19. ^ "High School Lip Dub 2010". Retrieved 2011-02-05.
  20. ^ "Victoria's Secret Video: VS Loves Katy Perry" (Video). New York, NY: Victoria Secret, CBS. 2010-11-29. Retrieved 2011-02-05.

Having a list of "recognizable" Lip dubs is completely non-objective

[edit]

First of all having a list of "recognizble" lip dubs is completely arbitrary.

Second of all some of the information about the each one is completely misconstrued. Which information is used to verify that the lip dubs in Israel were the first and second filmed there? I know for a fact that this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wP2RPYi7fSM) was filmed in February 2010, and was posted to youtube on April 2010. There are various other lip dubs that were filmed in Israel before these two such as the eurokemp 2010, and the Kinneret lip dub. Until facts are verified no 'firsts' or 'seconds' should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.160.219.22 (talk) 09:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree entirely with the above. Unless someone can cite this material I will be removing it. There is no clear criteria for what makes a video notable (or recognizable), and there are no numbers as to the number of views. So it would appear anyone can add any video they like, it's entirely in the opinion of the contributing editor. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The requirement of needing 100,000 views seems to be a pretty good one. I think we should organize so that each lipdub is listed in an actual "list" type of thing. Where each lipdub inputs the approximate amount of participants, the date filmed and/or released, and the number of views on Youtube or other video webpage. A description of each video can then be put into the list section where the lipdub is. This would allow people to quickly browse through the most "watched" lipdub, the ones with the most number of people participating, and read comments about each. Any that are notable for other reasons can be elaborated on in other sections of the article. Spudst3r (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a directory of videos. The correct place for lists of Youtube videos is on Youtube. There is also a great many videos on Youtube, and other places, that could be call a lip dub, as the definition is pretty flexible. Who is going to make the call and what is, and what isn't, 'lip dub'?--Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On definition: I would leave that ambiguous by creating a section about different interpretations of what constitutes a "lipdub." One major and obvious fracture in this debate is over whether or not it must be one continuous shot or if multiple cuts are allowed. Sourcing out the different rules of different lipdub sites and competitions could be used to explain the varying interpretations that exist for what is considered a lipdub. As we are dealing with a subject of popular culture (a notable one at that), there will never be an "authoritative" source for us to very clearly define what a lipdub is. We must then try to provide the best encyclopedic definition we can based on the trends of how popular culture defines what a lipdub is. For example, here are two different sources of definition with overlapping rules: http://universitylipdub.com/ and the SVN lipdub contest: http://www.school-video-news.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=743:lipdub-rules&catid=49:competitions&Itemid=117
On listing videos: Providing examples of notable videos seems entirely acceptable. Breaking this down into a list type format allows for the user to access different, factual information regarding these lipdubs. Knowing how many lipdubs out there that exists which has over 1,000 participants or over a million views on Youtube is encyclopedic--as this serves to better define to the reader the scope and breadth of the subject's impact on popular culture. Spudst3r (talk) 10:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I refer to all of the above arguments for keeping the list. We can't have a list of examples continually removed merely because you won't accept any definition, many of which have been proposed above. Richardc020 (talk) 04:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well which are you talking about, a few examples or a list of notable lipdubs? As I explain above, if we are to have "notable" lipdubs we need a sensible definition of what makes a lipdub notable that doesn't involve personal opinions. Otherwise it'll just keep getting added to with lipdubs that others have decide, in their opinion, are equally notable. Before you know it you have a messy, unmanaged list that's longer than the article. If, on the other hand, you're talking about examples of lipdubs, which examples would you suggest? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 18:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted my list of a few examples of lipdub. You also ignored the above's proposed definitions. Would any definition of "lipdub" would meet your unsaid criteria? You post the definition you've in mind, the one I didn't meet thus your deletion. My proposing would lead to an endless tit-for-tat-style refinement. Richardc020 (talk) 06:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your list of a few examples was an unexplained "See Also" section that consisted purely of Youtube video links. This is not the purpose of a "See also" section, see the Wikipedia manual of style. See also this discussion on linking to Youtube. The main problems with your examples are;
  • there was no explanation of what the videos are illustrating in particular (other than being lipdubs)
  • so that meant no explanation why these videos were chosen over others
  • they are all probably copyright violations, which shouldn't be linked]
This leaves the list looking like a list of "some videos I liked", which, as I explained above, simply means anyone else is equally justified in adding more videos they liked. Wikipedia is not a directory of videos.
The only way I can see these being included as examples is in the body of the article, as cites, not as a external link list. Each cited video being used to illustrate a point in the article. That, however, still leaves the problem that strictly speaking these are still copyright violations. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No answer is sufficient to prevent your repeated deletions. In addition to what I asked before, I also have you list reasons you'll delete the "External links" and the table above. Do you require each video to post a list of legal approvals from all related producers, publishers, attorneys, etc. to be valid for inclusion here? You also failed to read the above suggestions for definitions of a lipdub which won't matter because you actually demand a cited and published definition of lipdub which would be controversial because it'd refer to an ongoing social phenomena. You've single-handedly stopped the article from progressing by merely deleting edits. You improve the article by adding to it yourself instead of merely deleting here (and apparently elsewhere). Richardc020 (talk) 04:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And as I have explained before, a random, ill defined list of youtube links is not "progressing" the article. Wikipedia is not a links directory. The article is not about providing a list of videos, Youtube itself does a far better job of that. An encyclopaedia is about explaining the "ongoing social phenomena". If you can use these videos to do this then I would be delighted to see it. But a list of videos does not make a good article. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you think it's a good idea, I'm happy to seek a third opinion on things. That may progress things. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's mine then: if we have a completely subjective selection of pics/vids illustrating lipsync (the vid is very poorly chosen, by the way), then we can allow ourselves to have this list. Why not simply adjust the threshold of "notability" to reduce number of links?--Pamejudd (talk) 10:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Work on a such definition would be shot down regardless of its accuracy since (Talk) has already said he'll use a number of ways to do so. I find it incredible that 1 user can oppose so many others by pure personal motives. Sure, a cited definition would avoid the appearance of personal opinions but would User:Escape_Orbit auto-delete this proposed definition which would append the existing one at Lip dub:
  • filmed in 1 shot, with minimal breaks, or as a practically contiguous shot
  • filmed with at least dozens of participants, often to fulfill the need to choreograph to a soundtrack's length and need for different moves
  • choreography to match actions to soundtrack, often significant, closely timed, and rapidly paced
We'll see. Richardc020 (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I have "already said" I would shoot down anything, nor am I exercising any personal opinions. All I am saying, and you don't seem to follow, is that this is an Encyclopaedia article. It is not a directory of lib dub video links. Lists of anything, particularly when it is not explained what makes them notable, or why they, and not others, appear on the list, make for a bad article, unless it is an article specifically designed to be a list. If you can discuss the aspects of a lip dub video (such as one/minimal takes), with well chosen and specific examples, in chiefly prose, with cites, that would be far better. That could even cover "lip-dubs with most views". But a random list, with either no inclusion criteria, or an arbitrarily chosen threshold for inclusion, does not make an encyclopaedia article, and will only attract further list cruft. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Third Opinion Request:
Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Lip dub and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.
Opinion: Let's get back to basics. All edits at Wikipedia must conform to policy and guidelines (which I'll collectively refer to as the "rules"). Exceptions can be made by consensus. If an edit is not permitted by the rules, an exception can be made by local consensus, but if consensus is not achieved then the rules apply and the edit must not be made. Since this list has been challenged, then it cannot be included unless consensus is achieved. One of the rules of Wikipedia is set out at WP:Source list. It says, in pertinent part:

Lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others.

Difficult or contentious subjects for which the definition of the topic itself is disputed should be discussed on the talk page in order to attain consensus and to ensure that each item to be included on the list is adequately referenced and that the page on which the list appears as a whole represents a neutral point of view.
...
The verifiability policy states that if material is challenged or likely to be challenged, it is the responsibility of the editor who adds or restores the material to an article to cite sources for that material. Inclusion of material on a list should be based on what reliable sources say, not on what the editor interprets the source to be saying....

This means that for an item to be included on a list it must be supported by one or more reliable sources, that is, reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The sources which have been cited for the items on this list are, in almost every case, merely a link to the video itself. As such, those are not reliable sources and do not justify the inclusion of the item in this list — or the existence of the list itself. Though the hosting sites — most commonly YouTube — give the number of views, there is no rule in Wikipedia which establishes a certain number of views as indicating importance or significance or constituting a reliable source. For a single editor to arbitrarily decide such a number for this article would be prohibited original research and for that author to insist upon it would be prohibited page ownership. A local consensus could be formed here to create a local exception to the reliable source rule, but to do so would require the formation of a consensus which does not yet exist here. (And local exceptions can be fleeting and tricky things, especially when they make exceptions to principles as basic as the need for reliable sources. Since consensus can change the formation of a local consensus may only last until the next couple of editors weigh in; the original group of editors who formed the local consensus must then be very careful not to engage in a tag team to enforce the previous consensus as to do so will be prohibited multiple-editor page ownership.) Ultimately, this dispute is settled by the two sentences in the above-quoted rules which say, "The 'verifiability' policy states that if material is challenged or likely to be challenged, it is the responsibility of the editor who adds or restores the material to an article to cite sources for that material. Inclusion of material on a list should be based on what reliable sources say, not on what the editor interprets the source to be saying." Taking the last first, the number of views listed on a video site is merely the number of views. To interpret that number to indicate importance or significance is an interpretation of the source. Next, this list, having been challenged, should not be reintroduced without each included item being sourced with reliable sources other than the site on which it is hosted. If enough items can be reliably sourced to justify a list, then the inclusion of the list would seem to me to be appropriate. To close, let me anticipate the potential objection that there are many lists on Wikipedia which are not reliably sourced. That assertion is absolutely true, but irrelevant for the reasons set out at WP:OTHERSTUFF. Next to last, I would note that a couple of three of the editors involved in this dispute have fewer than 400 edits at Wikipedia. I'd like to thank them for their efforts to improve Wikipedia and I would encourage them to read the tips I gave to another user. Finally, I would commend all the editors involved in this dispute for their civility and willingness to discuss rather than hurl invective.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Rapids

[edit]

http://www.salon.com/news/media_criticism/?story=/ent/tv/feature/2011/05/27/grand_rapids_lipdub_newsweek — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.96.226.6 (talk) 12:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lip_dub&oldid=1203611879"