|
Post by kds on Aug 26, 2019 14:11:13 GMT
I want my I want my I want my M-T-V
There was a time this was true. But, now I couldn't want anything less.
So, I happened to catch an add for the 2019 MTV Video Music Awards. I found myself a tad surprised that they still put on that show, considering the lack of music videos on the channel in the last couple decades. That got me thinking about MTV in general.
Back when Sting sang the above lyrics in the smash Dire Straits song Money for Nothing in 1985, MTV was indeed a blessing. They showed music videos from new artists and even older artists. They actually aired the mid 1960s Beatles cartoons on Saturday mornings. They aired Live Aid on live television on July 13, 1985 for everybody to see.
But, as The Buggles pointed out on MTV's very first video, video would indeed kill the radio star. As MTV went on, music started to change. Image was now more important than quality music. Here are two examples.
1. Madonna. Madonna released a lot of catchy pop tunes in the 1980s, but she really got a boost from video. Her risque image on music videos made her an icon. Would she have been nearly as popular without MTV? I doubt it. And a lot of pop stars, with far less talent, followed her example to super stardom.
2. Billy Squier. Billy was an up and coming hard rock artist in the first half of the 1980s, thanks in part to the classic 1981 album Don't Say No. However, his ultra campy video for Rock Me Tonite didn't set well with his fans, and that video is largely credited for killing any momentum his career had.
So, thanks to MTV, a marginal talent became an icon, and a rising rocker was cast into obscurity.
As the 80s wore on, several bands and artists changed their images to adapt to the music video age, some more successful than others. It seemed like, for rock music anyway, that MTV was homogenizing it to a point where their was only one acceptable "image" for rock stars, and that was the "hair metal" look. Even 70s rockers like Aerosmith, KISS, and Whitesnake changed their look and sound for the era.
By the time the 90s hit, that "image" was no longer deemed cool. Enter grunge. Now, in the late 1970s and into the 1980s, "fashionable" rock like punk, new wave, and new romance co-existed just fine with AOR and hard rock. But, not in the early 1990s. The surge of grunge, and the "anti rock star" image effectively killed off many of the 80s biggest names. It can be debated that the 80s hard rock era was destined to collapse, but I honestly think MTV accelerated it. Even pre MTV bands were forced to adapt. Van Halen, for example, released a grunge flavored album called Balance in 1995.
Although, MTV did still show some respect to legacy artists by airing the Jimmy Page / Robert Plant Unledded Special and The Eagles Hell Freezes Over reunion in 1994, and the Fleetwood Mac The Dance reunion in 1997.
Another MTV development in the 1990s was the slow moving away from music to focus on original programming. By 1996, MTV played so little music than they launched MTV2 to fill the void. By the turn of the century, MTV2 was filled mostly with reality TV fodder like MTV. Also, by the turn of the century, there was no longer room on MTV for legacy artists anymore.
In the 21st century, MTV devolved into a cultural wasteland. Jackass, The Jersey Shore, and Teen Moms, just to name a few, shone a light on and rewarded stupidity and douchebaggery in general.
MTV has become a popular scapegoat for the decline of music. I don't think it's solely responsible, but I think it played a big role. And, it's not just music, but pop culture in general has taken a hit thanks to the "personalities" that have made a fortune for themselves on the network.
So, I guess there will be teenager tuning in tonight to watch country star turned pop tart Taylor Swift promote her latest nonsense or Missy Elliott receive some sort of lifetime achieve award. The event also promises some sort of unforgettable hip hop performance. I noticed the promo didn't mention any rock and roll. It seems the merchants of cool who run the network still think very lowly of the genre that the network helped to kill over two decades ago.
So, Sting, the answer is no. I don't want my MTV. Not anymore. It's gone enough damage to music and the culture in general.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Aug 26, 2019 15:36:17 GMT
Somewhat ironically, music videos have made a huge comeback in the past decade or so … it’s just that MTV has had nothing to do with it. Where they used to wield disproportionate power and acted like mobsters, demanding (and getting) free content from artists/labels to promote them, now those artists and labels go to YouTube/Vevo to post their videos, which fans can watch anytime, anywhere. It may not be as obvious to casual fans when they are only seeing their own favorite bands’ videos these days, but when you step back you can see what must be gigantic budgets on videos. Many artists have even gone the route of releasing “films” to accompany new albums, linking together videos for entire albums (or at least numerous songs per album) into longer-form videos. (Think of Beyonce’s “Lemonade” album from a couple of years ago.) But the biggest productions unsurprisingly seem to be in those popular genres that seem to have replaced rock: synth-based pop and hip hop. It’s a lot of Ariana Grande, Taylor Swift, Katy Perry, Beyonce, etc. As for MTV itself, I both do and don’t miss it. On one hand, it definitely perverted pop music to be even more image-driven than it was before (which was plenty). It told us what we liked, with a pretty limited playlist most of the time. (How long did you have to watch in the late 80s before you’d see a U2, Bon Jovi, GnR, Madonna, Prince, or Michael Jackson video? Five minutes?) But it had its benefits. It added more genre-based shows like Hard 30, Hard 60, Headbanger’s Ball for metal; 120 Minutes for “college rock” (which became “alternative”); Yo! MTV Raps for rap; all of which made for a widening of what you might see. The countdown shows made it easy to stay abreast of the hits across genres. The awards shows allowed for a lot of great live performances. There was something exciting about watching—just as there can be with radio listening—for the next song, the next video, as opposed to just popping in your worn-out KISS Crazy Nights or Poison Open Up and Say … Ahhh cassette for the 500th time, risking your stereo eating the tape (again). And even its nonmusical programming had its moments: I was a huge fan of The Real World early on, and Beavis & Butthead was pure genius. I haven’t regularly watched MTV in 20 years, though. I assume it’s got nothing for me. (I think back to its 20th anniversary, in 2001 or whatever, when there was a certain amount of trepidation from the network on how to celebrate: their entire mantra was on a history-less existence, just treating the then-current crop of 15-year-olds as the only people who ever existed. Nobody wanted to remind these kids that their parents watched MTV once upon a time.) Whatever they’re doing these days, I guess they can go on doing it without me. I doubt either they or I will worry too much about the other.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Aug 26, 2019 15:48:22 GMT
I will say that, of all the original TV shows MTV had, Beavis and Butt-Head was great. Mike Judge actually rebooted the show and produced ten new episodes that ran on MTV2 back in 2011. Instead of making fun of videos, the duo commented on the likes of The Jersey Shore with hilarious results.
What MTV does today doesn't bother me too much. Although, there is a part of me that actually feels bad for younger fans who see Taylor Swift as an icon. That's like going through life thinking that Ramen Noodles are the height of cuisine.
But, I think I'm more irked about the overall negative impact MTV had on music, rock in particular.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Aug 27, 2019 12:51:58 GMT
kds, in reading your post a couple of times, I think your main "gripe" is that concerning MTV, image was more important than the quality of music. While I think that image was important - it seemed like you had to be hip and go along with the crowd and make videos - I still think the strength of the song, the quality of the music trumped the power of the video. As I remember, if the song was weak, I think the video's life was short-lived, and conversely, if the the song was good, the video was...more accepted, maybe even liked more. There were some artists who were pretty loopy and not necessarily attractive who were getting their stuff played on MTV (or maybe I didn't really know what was hip - that is entirely possible), and they were becoming popular. And I think it was because of the music. One-hit wonders maybe, but it was always that way.
Am I interpreting your point correctly? I always thought that the artist was recording their best album possible and trying to make the best possible RECORD first, THEN picked the best song or the most commercial song as a single, THEN hiring somebody to produce an accompanying video. The first part, the recording of the album in the studio and choosing a single was the same as it had always been. The only difference was the followup video. Right? With some (many?) of the artists, I don't know how much they were even involved with the concept of the video or the final product. Oh, some of them definitely were, but again, the video was after the fact.
There were definitely some artists who tried to take advantage of this new age, this video age, and obviously had a video in mind along with the conception of the song. And I don't think there was anything wrong with that. But again, didn't you let your ears be the judge. No matter how much artistic merit the video had, if the song wasn't good, that video wouldn't last.
Not to oversimplify, but MTV was just another moment in the timeline of rock/pop's evolution. I don't want to over-praise it, but I think it was important. You listed many of the positives. I know it exposed me to many artists I never would've even heard of. Yeah, in the end it became passe. But for that first decade, they were really onto something.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Aug 27, 2019 12:59:19 GMT
kds, in reading your post a couple of times, I think your main "gripe" is that concerning MTV, image was more important than the quality of music. While I think that image was important - it seemed like you had to be hip and go along with the crowd and make videos - I still think the strength of the song, the quality of the music trumped the power of the video. As I remember, if the song was weak, I think the video's life was short-lived, and conversely, if the the song was good, the video was...more accepted, maybe even liked more. There were some artists who were pretty loopy and not necessarily attractive who were getting their stuff played on MTV (or maybe I didn't really know what was hip - that is entirely possible), and they were becoming popular. And I think it was because of the music. One-hit wonders maybe, but it was always that way.
Am I interpreting your point correctly? I always thought that the artist was recording their album possible and trying to make the best possible record first, THEN picked the best song or the most commercial song as a single, THEN hired some body to produce an accompanying video. The first part, the recording of the album in the studio and choosing a single was the same as it had always been. The only difference was the followup video. Right? With some (many?) of the artists, I don't know how much they were even involved with the concept of the video or the final product. Oh, some of them definitely were, but again, the video was after the fact.
There were definitely some artists who tried to take advantage of this new age, this video age, and obviously had a video in mind along with the conception of the song. And I don't think there was anything wrong with that. But again, didn't you let your ears be the judge. No matter how much artistic merit the video had, if the song wasn't good, that video wouldn't last.
Not to oversimplify, but MTV was another moment in the timeline of rock/pop's evolution. I don't want to over-praise it, but I think it was important. You listed many of the positives. I know it exposed me to many artists I never would've even heard of. Yeah, in the end it became passe. But for that first decade, they were really onto something.
Maybe differing tastes, but I noticed the strength of the song didn't really matter if the video was memorable. For example, take the Blind Melon song "No Rain." A pretty run of the mill early 90s alternative song. But, it was elevated to another level because of the "Bee Girl" music video. I will agree with you that, for the first decade of so, MTV was more positive than negative. But, I think the overall impact on music and culture was negative.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Aug 27, 2019 13:37:22 GMT
kds, in reading your post a couple of times, I think your main "gripe" is that concerning MTV, image was more important than the quality of music. While I think that image was important - it seemed like you had to be hip and go along with the crowd and make videos - I still think the strength of the song, the quality of the music trumped the power of the video. As I remember, if the song was weak, I think the video's life was short-lived, and conversely, if the the song was good, the video was...more accepted, maybe even liked more. There were some artists who were pretty loopy and not necessarily attractive who were getting their stuff played on MTV (or maybe I didn't really know what was hip - that is entirely possible), and they were becoming popular. And I think it was because of the music. One-hit wonders maybe, but it was always that way.
Am I interpreting your point correctly? I always thought that the artist was recording their album possible and trying to make the best possible record first, THEN picked the best song or the most commercial song as a single, THEN hired some body to produce an accompanying video. The first part, the recording of the album in the studio and choosing a single was the same as it had always been. The only difference was the followup video. Right? With some (many?) of the artists, I don't know how much they were even involved with the concept of the video or the final product. Oh, some of them definitely were, but again, the video was after the fact.
There were definitely some artists who tried to take advantage of this new age, this video age, and obviously had a video in mind along with the conception of the song. And I don't think there was anything wrong with that. But again, didn't you let your ears be the judge. No matter how much artistic merit the video had, if the song wasn't good, that video wouldn't last.
Not to oversimplify, but MTV was another moment in the timeline of rock/pop's evolution. I don't want to over-praise it, but I think it was important. You listed many of the positives. I know it exposed me to many artists I never would've even heard of. Yeah, in the end it became passe. But for that first decade, they were really onto something.
Maybe differing tastes, but I noticed the strength of the song didn't really matter if the video was memorable. For example, take the Blind Melon song "No Rain." A pretty run of the mill early 90s alternative song. But, it was elevated to another level because of the "Bee Girl" music video. But maybe a lot of people really liked that SONG. I'm not disagreeing that the video couldn't/didn't elevate the song to greater heights, but, again, I wouldn't be surprised if the artist picked what they thought was their best song(s) or most commercial song, and then released it as a single and then did a video for it. I'm not downplaying the impact of the video, but I still think it was after-the-fact, and if the song didn't have merit, neither would the video.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Aug 27, 2019 13:54:09 GMT
Maybe differing tastes, but I noticed the strength of the song didn't really matter if the video was memorable. For example, take the Blind Melon song "No Rain." A pretty run of the mill early 90s alternative song. But, it was elevated to another level because of the "Bee Girl" music video. But maybe a lot of people really liked that SONG. I'm not disagreeing that the video couldn't/didn't elevate the song to greater heights, but, again, I wouldn't be surprised if the artist picked what they thought was their best song(s) or most commercial song, and then released it as a single and then did a video for it. I'm not downplaying the impact of the video, but I still think it was after-the-fact, and if the song didn't have merit, neither would the video. Maybe people did, and that's one example. But, when I look as what happened to mainstream music over the last 30 decades, I feel like the MTV era has spawned more video stars than legit talented artists. Sorry, just calling it like I see it.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Aug 27, 2019 14:02:16 GMT
I see your point, and I'm sure many people feel the way you do. Maybe I'm in the minority. I just viewed MTV like radio with a picture. I turned it on just as I would turn on the radio - to listen to music. If I liked the music I was hearing, I kept it on. If I didn't, I changed the channel. If I "discovered" a new song or a new group, I might be enticed to go out and purchase it - just like I did with radio. Did I occasionally just "get into" watching come cool or cutting edge or strange videos? Absolutely. Watching the videos was a form of entertainment, too, and that's a fascinating aspect to delve into.
I'm sitting here trying to think of songs that I liked more or because of the video. I know there are some. I'm going to contemplate that and come up with a list!
|
|
|
Post by kds on Aug 27, 2019 14:05:41 GMT
I see your point, and I'm sure many people feel the way you do. Maybe I'm in the minority. I just viewed MTV like radio with a picture. I turned it on just as I would turn on the radio - to listen to music. If I liked the music I was hearing, I kept it on. If I didn't, I changed the channel. If I "discovered" a new song or a new group, I might be enticed to go out and purchase it - just like I did with radio. Did I occasionally just "get into" watching come cool or cutting edge or strange videos? Absolutely. Watching the videos was a form of entertainment, too, and that's a fascinating aspect to delve into.
I'm sitting here trying to think of songs that I liked more or because of the video. I know there are some. I'm going to contemplate that and come up with a list!
I think at the beginning I could see that. But, I also think MTV deserves a good portion of blame for the decline in overall quality in mainstream music. Especially when it comes to rock music.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Aug 28, 2019 1:16:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by kds on Aug 28, 2019 12:10:39 GMT
When I saw this, I was hoping to read that people were finally getting fed up with the egos and increasing politicization of award shows in general, or maybe were finally growing tired of what's become of music and Taylor Swift's age regression shtick. But, alas, just a reflection of changing trends in TV watching.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Aug 28, 2019 12:40:32 GMT
I see your point, and I'm sure many people feel the way you do. Maybe I'm in the minority. I just viewed MTV like radio with a picture. I turned it on just as I would turn on the radio - to listen to music. If I liked the music I was hearing, I kept it on. If I didn't, I changed the channel. If I "discovered" a new song or a new group, I might be enticed to go out and purchase it - just like I did with radio. Did I occasionally just "get into" watching come cool or cutting edge or strange videos? Absolutely. Watching the videos was a form of entertainment, too, and that's a fascinating aspect to delve into.
I'm sitting here trying to think of songs that I liked more or because of the video. I know there are some. I'm going to contemplate that and come up with a list!
I think at the beginning I could see that. But, I also think MTV deserves a good portion of blame for the decline in overall quality in mainstream music. Especially when it comes to rock music. It would be interesting to read some surveys or studies about this. I can think of other "things" to blame for the decline in the overall quality in mainstream music that come before MTV, but who knows?
I'm still trying to come up with my list of songs that I liked MORE because of the video. The only one I can up with, and it's not really a conventional video, not the kind we're discussing, but it would be "We Are The World". I much preferred watching that array of superstars (well, most of 'em) rather than just listening to the song. It was a decent song but not one I would ever play just to listen to. I would sit through the video, though, and somewhat enjoy.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Aug 28, 2019 12:48:42 GMT
I think at the beginning I could see that. But, I also think MTV deserves a good portion of blame for the decline in overall quality in mainstream music. Especially when it comes to rock music. It would be interesting to read some surveys or studies about this. I can think of other "things" to blame for the decline in the overall quality in mainstream music that come before MTV, but who knows?
I'm still trying to come up with my list of songs that I liked MORE because of the video. The only one I can up with, and it's not really a conventional video, not the kind we're discussing, but it would be "We Are The World". I much preferred watching that array of superstars (well, most of 'em) rather than just listening to the song. It was a decent song but not one I would ever play just to listen to. I would sit through the video, though, and somewhat enjoy.
I'd say those charity videos like Do They Know It's Christmas or Hear N Aid's Stars are a little unique in that seeing all that star power together was a novelty. There might be one or two videos that might've enhanced the song for me at one time. Metallica's One or GNR's November Rain come to mind, but I don't really feel that way anyway. Sure, like I've said before, MTV is not the reason music went downhill, but there's no doubt in my mind that it is a reason.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Aug 28, 2019 12:55:22 GMT
I don’t think there could be any question that the addition of visuals to music changed how people appreciated music during the MTV era. I’m not saying it was a conscious thing—in fact it probably was unconscious more often than not—but there is just no way to add a whole other sensory element without it mattering. You could even just think of a handful of songs that people can’t separate from the videos. Without necessarily saying it changed their minds on the songs for better or worse, songs like “Sledgehammer,” “Money For Nothing” and “Thriller” are almost inseparable in many people’s memories from their videos. Whitesnake’s late 80s existence is owed mostly to MTV (or at least Tawny Kittaen via MTV). How good a song was Billy Idol’s “Cradle of Love?” I can tell you this, it was an awfully popular video… My guess is individuals, when asked, would say the video didn’t impact their enjoyment, but would admit that it did for other people … just like people regularly say about advertising. (“It has a powerful impact on other people, but not me.”) And I think if there were a way to do it, it would be interesting to judge the physical attractiveness of hitmakers in the 60s and 70s compared to the 80s and early 90s. I’m guessing MTV made people up their game, appearance-wise. (Not to say that pop stars weren’t focused on looks before. After all, there were TV appearances and magazines.)
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Aug 28, 2019 12:58:10 GMT
It would be interesting to read some surveys or studies about this. I can think of other "things" to blame for the decline in the overall quality in mainstream music that come before MTV, but who knows?
I'm still trying to come up with my list of songs that I liked MORE because of the video. The only one I can up with, and it's not really a conventional video, not the kind we're discussing, but it would be "We Are The World". I much preferred watching that array of superstars (well, most of 'em) rather than just listening to the song. It was a decent song but not one I would ever play just to listen to. I would sit through the video, though, and somewhat enjoy.
Sure, like I've said before, MTV is not the reason music went downhill, but there's no doubt in my mind that it is a reason. I'm just making conversation here, good discussion...but have you read interviews from any artists or bands who "blamed" MTV for the decline in the quality of their music? They might have some negative memories or recollections about feeling obligated to "keep up with what everybody was doing", you know, peer pressure to make videos. But when they wrote music, signed their record contracts, and went into the studio to make records, did they find that eventually making an accompanying video caused them to make inferior music?
|
|