What Makes a good music video?

We carried out research into what makes a good music video we have searched numurus articles and websites also including music television stations to try and find out what makes a good video here are some of the examples we managed to find.
1. Credits. Yes, yes, it adds a cinematic element to the video. Yes, yes, it makes everything look professional and epic. Awesome, it’s like the audience is watching a movie. But what’s the major difference between music videos and feature films? Oh, I don’t know, maybe about two hours! Also, millions upon millions of cash. Yes, some videos deserve special admiration for its technical feats but credits? Really? It just looks so pretentious. And if there’s one thing musicians want to avoid it’s being pretentious.

2. Sound effects/dialogue. I’ve watched a lot of videos and this is one kernel of truth I’ve discovered: all music videos aspire to be movies. The director usually wants to be filming a movie, the crew usually wants to be filming a movie and we all know the artist wants to be filming a movie. This leads to silly little ideas like adding dialogue or special effects to a music video. Explosions, heavy rain, bad bits of conversation. Yuck. Is this a MUSIC video? Why are people talking? Why does this feel like a film trailer? Oh, that’s right, everyone’s stuck in a state of arrested development and can’t come to terms with the fact that they’re not Brad Pitt. Deal with it, people! Cut out all the extra bells and whistles, it comes across as stupid and contrived.

3. Too much story. This is the biggest one of all. A music video is best when it realizes the confines of the medium. Let’s be honest: you’ve got a couple minutes to draw in the viewer’s attention and leave a lasting impression. Use those few minutes in your favor! Be creative, be inventive! Try something new! It’s a horrible idea to try and create a larger-than-life story and cram it into the short amount of time. It never works, it looks silly and it lends to parody.
(This article was useful as we felt many of the opions stated where valid)

• It the piece technically well executed? Regardless of the style, the performance - whether improvised, derived from notation, or electroacoustically produced - should be free of extraneous notes, sounds, effects, nuances of any kind that do not contribute to communication of the musical ideas.
  
• Does it exploit a variety of elements of music, i.e. rhythm, harmony, melody, texture/timbre? Although a quality piece of music need not have all elements equally represented (in fact, many if not most fine works do not), a piece that relies solely on any one element is likely to be less than fulfilling.
  
• Is the chief attraction not the music but the words? If the answer is yes, then the piece probably should be considered more as a theater piece or as poetry, than music. For music is the most abstract of arts, and although the marriage of text and music can be transcendent, the best does not need verbal associations to enhance it.
  
• Are the elements of the work highly integrated so that each supports the other’s function? Melody, for example, cannot exist without at least some degree of rhythm; rhythm, however, can exist without melody, as can harmony without either rhythm or melody. But it seems that most truly satisfying music exploits the elements in ways that cause the product of them to be greater that the sum of the elements, disparately.
  
• Does the piece appeal on a variety of levels – intellectual, emotional, spiritual? A piece can be strong enough in any one of these areas to justify being called good, but the best music somehow seems to appeal on many levels.
  Is there a feeling of "musicality" about it? That is, does the piece invoke a desire for body movement that corresponds to the gestures in sound? Musicality is distinctly human and inexorably connected to physical movement in ways that are imbedded in our psyches from the first expressive sounds uttered by our ancient ancestors to experiences as recent as our last rehearsal.
  
• Is there satisfying formal organization to the way the gestures are presented and developed? Since music occurs over time and for practical reasons, if for no other, music has to have a beginning and end, it seems to be our nature to expect some kind of sequence and development of the ideas that we find satisfying as anticipation and memory blend to create a mental image of form.
  
• Is there a good balance between familiarity and variety, appropriate for the length of the piece? Clearly, very extended pieces will need to introduce more variety than very short ones; likewise the task of maintaining coherence within greater diversity is more difficult and expected in longer pieces.
  
• After having been listened to many times, does the piece still have appeal, appeal that is based on some new revelations rather than solely on comfortable familiarity? Complexity in and of itself is not especially valuable, but exceptional music seems to have many facets, and holds up well and continues to interest even after many listenings.
  
• Do you feel positively stimulated, better, richer, fuller, or improved in some way for having heard the piece? This may seem a lot to expect, but truly great pieces (which, or course most music, even very fine music, will not be) often have a beneficial effect on careful listeners. Like the nutrition axiom "we are what we eat," (which, although obviously not literal, makes the point that our physical health is affected by our diet) in the arts we are what we consume, and what we habitually listen to affects our spirits. The best music makes us better by stimulating our minds and touching our hearts, and helps us feel better about ourselves and the world.
  (Also a useful article that we have tried to take pointers from in order to make our own piece a success)