This morning I heard an interesting feature by Neda Ulaby on NPR about how music video directors have changed their styles and methods to adapt to the fact that few people watch videos on TV anymore, instead checking them out on much smaller computer monitor, Blackberries and even cell phones.

It made me realize I don't watch videos. Sure, during the '80s I was happy to see videos by my favorite bands, but not because it meant anything to the music, but it was a way to see the bands on something other than a still photo on a record jacket. Even then I rarely sought them out actively.

Nowadays, I go to You Tube, but only to hear the music. I use it more as an audio jukebox than to see the images. In fact, I can't tell you what happens in the videos of the songs I click most on You Tube. I'm not looking, just listening.

Does a good video make a song better? Does a bad video ruin a good song? For me, the answers to both questions are "no."

I don't need an interpretive dance to enhance a Morandi still life and I don't think a melodramic, oversimplification of lyrics makes a song better. In fact, music - like literature - is especially good at fueling the imagination and letting listeners - like readers - form their own mental images of the subject matter and emotions based on the aural or verbal hues.

Forcing images onto the music demands that we all interpret the art in the same way. It's why few people ever love the movie after adoring the novel. The film tells us that the way we had imagined the characters, the settings, the scenes was wrong. The director's vision overlays and often obscures the vision of the songwriter or novelist.

It's not their fault, of course, they're doing exactly what is expected of them. And, they will tell you the movie is not the novel and the two shouldn't be confused.

On this we would agree. And, I would add, the video is not the song and the two shouldn't be confused.