Odd, but not for the reasons you might think...

Ke$ha's video for "Blow" came out a couple of weeks ago but we didn't write about it because we were in the midst of a really difficult/slow/stressful/busy few days and then it was just one of those things that got put off and put off and put off and now we're finally getting round to it. The video is fairly unexceptional, and usually is the kind of thing we'd write two sentences about before moving on with our lives. But something's not quite right in the state of Denmark (!) so we're going to write our two sentences and then elaborate. Here they are: Ke$ha has clearly had a wash and this video is amusing for about 5 milliseconds, but if Ms. Sebert really wants to hold onto her spot as one of the planet's top pop divas she's gonna have to come up with something a little more inspired or memorable or timeless or fantastical, especially seeing as in the realm of music videos she has lagged sorely behind Germanotta, Minaj, Perry and Fenty for the entirety of her very short career.

Anyway, that out of the way, we'll move on with the proceedings. This is odd not because of the video itself, but because of something we read ages ago. In January rumours started circulating on the internet that the video would be 6 minutes long, a 'to-be-continued' type o' situation with "Sleazy" following as the sequel. It would be shot in Hawaii by Diane Martel, next to a volcano and feature lots of red and green. Now these were unofficial reports and potentially pulled out of the ass of a crazed fan. But considering the actual video seemed to be shot on a very tight budget, and to be the kind of gimmicky "we'll shoot it all in one room in one afternoon" feel of something rushed or thought up at the last minute... was the original volcano-featuring, Diane Martel-helmed, 6 minute long, red and green extravaganza scrapped after it was shot and hastily reworked?

If this is the case, it wouldn't be the first time it happened. Back in 2009 we posted a picture of Little Boots with daringly iridescent, glittery éjac faciale eye make-up on the set of her video for smash hit pop song "Remedy". We were also treated to pictures of dancers in PVC, and news that the video would be set in space and feature exploding glass. When the actual video came out (a sub-Kylie kaleidoscope of keyboards and flashing lights) people overexcited pop fans on certain music forums were confused. What happened to the original video? Well we've just spent the better part of an hour trawling for it, but we remember distinctly reading a set of posts by a mysterious enigmatic figure on the Popjustice forums around that time who claimed he worked for the video production company working on "Remedy" and that the original had been so awful, and Little Boots herself had been so devoid of charisma, that the entire video had been scrapped and the cheapo replacement one we got in the end was a rushed rework done at the last minute.

And that's not all, either. Alexandra Burke's recent number 1 single "Start Without You" featured one of the most mindbogglingly cheap/aesthetically offensive/unknowingly camp videos of all time. The kind of thing an ageing dance diva might turn her nose up at and say "too far, gurl, too far". Why, you might ask, was the video for the lead single of a major artist's rerelease so awful, especially considering this song was, in the end, a hit? No, not because the song itself is a dreadful earsore destined to induce ear-bleeding for decades to come. No, because the original video shot was scrapped at the last minute and this was the cheap replacement. Here, is proof.

But why? In each of these cases a video that sounded and/or looked like (at the very least) a lot of fun was totally dumped (and therefore a hell of a lot of cash and time doubtlessly flushed down the toilet) with no explanation offered and a shoddy stand-in offered instead. We may never work out the reason, seeing as there is very little information on offer (i.e. we can't be bothered to look any longer) but considering how keen record labels are to cover up major disasters, part of us isn't surprised. We are however, super-curious to see these original works. What was so awful about them that they had to be totally and utterly scrapped? Were they really that unsalvageable? They sound like the camp disasterpieces that never were.