|
Post by Kapitan on Aug 28, 2019 13:03:28 GMT
Obviously nobody would say “I made worse music because of mtv.”
But I’ve read plenty of interviews with artists complaining that labels prioritized videos over everything else (at the artists’ expense via advances on their deals) and then also promoted or abandoned them immediately based on videos’ performance. In other words, they felt that the focus should be on visuals, and the music should imitate the trendy videos’ music.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Aug 28, 2019 13:09:49 GMT
Obviously nobody would say “I made worse music because of mtv.” But I’ve read plenty of interviews with artists complaining that labels prioritized videos over everything else (at the artists’ expense via advances on their deals) and then also promoted or abandoned them immediately based on videos’ performance. In other words, they felt that the focus should be on visuals, and the music should imitate the trendy videos’ music. Oh, sure, but that's different from the genesis of the music itself. The videos were after the fact. I'm pretty sure that most artists had very little to do with the production of their videos. They might've dedicated a few days for filming, but that was it. And I don't know (I highly doubt it) that the record companies were telling their artists to write music with a video in mind. I'm just not getting a connection how screening a video could adversely affect...songwriters. And it's the songs, the actual music that affects the future of the music. Duh.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Aug 28, 2019 13:13:01 GMT
But I’ve read plenty of interviews with artists complaining that labels prioritized videos over everything else (at the artists’ expense via advances on their deals) and then also promoted or abandoned them immediately based on videos’ performance. In other words, they felt that the focus should be on visuals, and the music should imitate the trendy videos’ music. How do/did they measure a video's performance? Maybe the song tanked on the Billboard Charts. That would be a separate argument - can the quality or appeal of the video affect the popularity of the song?
|
|
|
Post by kds on Aug 28, 2019 13:16:49 GMT
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? I know of no interviews where an artist blames MTV for the decline of their music, specifically. But I do think MTV deserves a lot of blame for the sudden death of the 80s hard rock scene. So, I know many of those artists blame MTV for the shift in attention in rock away from what they were doing. A lot of hard rock and heavy metal artists started releasing a lot of grunge influenced music in 1990s. Motley Crue comes to mind. And of course, there's Billy Squier, whose career momentum was halted by a "bad" video. In addition to artists trying to keep up, I don't think there's any way somebody like Brittney Spears becomes a mega star without MTV. Her singing voice is OK at best, but she's easy on the eyes, and burst on the scene thanks to a skimpy school girl outfit 20 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Aug 28, 2019 13:20:33 GMT
I do think the popularity of artists, or lack thereof, was influenced by videos too.
I honestly think Dokken would've been a much bigger band if they'd managed to release videos that were memorable for the right reasons. And I remember an interview with either Don Dokken or George Lynch were they discussed how terrible their attempts at music videos were, and how that could've negatively affected their career.
Dokken had better songwriting and musicianship that a lot of their peers who went on to have bigger careers.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Aug 28, 2019 13:23:51 GMT
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? In addition to artists trying to keep up, I don't think there's any way somebody like Brittney Spears becomes a mega star without MTV. Her singing voice is OK at best, but she's easy on the eyes, and burst on the scene thanks to a skimpy school girl outfit 20 years ago. So, people went into record stores and bought millions of Britney Spears CDs and listened to them on their boomboxes or with their ear buds or in their parents' car - and DJs filled dance floors with those songs - because of her videos?
|
|
|
Post by kds on Aug 28, 2019 13:29:10 GMT
In addition to artists trying to keep up, I don't think there's any way somebody like Brittney Spears becomes a mega star without MTV. Her singing voice is OK at best, but she's easy on the eyes, and burst on the scene thanks to a skimpy school girl outfit 20 years ago. So, people went into record stores and bought millions of Britney Spears CDs and listened to them on their boomboxes or with their ear buds or in their parents' car - and DJs filled dance floors with those songs - because of her videos? She used the videos as a platform for popularity. I don't think she'd have sold all of those CDs without those music videos. A lot of times, the music video for the lead single would hit TV before the album release.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Aug 28, 2019 13:30:02 GMT
I do think the popularity of artists, or lack thereof, was influenced by videos too. No doubt about it. The screening or playing or enjoying of the videos can absolutely increase the popularity of an artist, but that's different than videos affecting their songwriting.
It was mentioned above how MTV exposed people to acts they never would've even heard of. I went out and bought two Split Enz albums after I heard (saw?) "I Got You" and "One Step Ahead" on MTV. Same with Paul McCartney's Tug Of War album. I rediscovered The Kinks after "Come Dancing". And on and on.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Aug 28, 2019 13:41:06 GMT
I do think the popularity of artists, or lack thereof, was influenced by videos too. No doubt about it. The screening or playing or enjoying of the videos can absolutely increase the popularity of an artist, but that's different than videos affecting their songwriting.
It was mentioned above how MTV exposed people to acts they never would've even heard of. I went out and bought two Split Enz albums after I heard (saw?) "I Got You" and "One Step Ahead" on MTV. Same with Paul McCartney's Tug Of War album. I rediscovered The Kinks after "Come Dancing". And on and on.
I never said it affected their songwriting, but videos can assist a mediocre artist in becoming massively popular. And I believe we've seen a lot of that over the past few decades.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Aug 28, 2019 13:44:21 GMT
I’ll try to summarize arguments on a few of the points that were made through the past few posts. No, songwriters were not somehow forced to write intentionally worse songs because videos existed and were popular. No, artists presumably did not have much to do with the production of videos. But videos overtook radio singles as the daily currency of the pop (broadly defined) music world. Popularity on MTV mattered because it drove everything. Think about it: when you look at the Billboard charts, how many top songs didn’t have successful videos? Once the video becomes the dominant force, it changes everything because the environment itself has changed. If you are expected to have a successful video, then your focus is the video. “Your” in this case meaning everyone’s: the artist is presumably thinking about how the song will translate to a video (is it too long? Is there a story arc?) as well as his or her own appearance (are you focused on learning how to shred in the Lydian Dominant mode, or are you at the gym or making sure your hair looks good?); the label is more concerned with signing people who look good over who sound good or write well, because you can always get studio musicians and writers for hire (Desmond Child became a hugely powerful figure in music in the MTV era); the money is all going toward videos. Does that affect everything else? Of course, like anything else, the money is what matters. We complain in the television world about commercials: they are crass advertisements, lowbrow attempts to fool us into buying this or that, all taking away from the “art” of programming. MTV was a network exclusively of commercials. That’s what videos were. MTV got, for free, nothing but commercial programming. Don’t you think that those advertisements, that those commercials, had an effect on the buying and listening habits of the people watching? And don’t you think that the people making those commercials (e.g., both the songs and the videos that accompanied them) were effected by that paradigm shift?
|
|
|
Post by kds on Aug 28, 2019 13:47:53 GMT
I’ll try to summarize arguments on a few of the points that were made through the past few posts. No, songwriters were not somehow forced to write intentionally worse songs because videos existed and were popular. No, artists presumably did not have much to do with the production of videos. But videos overtook radio singles as the daily currency of the pop (broadly defined) music world. Popularity on MTV mattered because it drove everything. Think about it: when you look at the Billboard charts, how many top songs didn’t have successful videos? Once the video becomes the dominant force, it changes everything because the environment itself has changed. If you are expected to have a successful video, then your focus is the video. “Your” in this case meaning everyone’s: the artist is presumably thinking about how the song will translate to a video (is it too long? Is there a story arc?) as well as his or her own appearance (are you focused on learning how to shred in the Lydian Dominant mode, or are you at the gym or making sure your hair looks good?); the label is more concerned with signing people who look good over who sound good or write well, because you can always get studio musicians and writers for hire (Desmond Child became a hugely powerful figure in music in the MTV era); the money is all going toward videos. Does that affect everything else? Of course, like anything else, the money is what matters. We complain in the television world about commercials: they are crass advertisements, lowbrow attempts to fool us into buying this or that, all taking away from the “art” of programming. MTV was a network exclusively of commercials. That’s what videos were. MTV got, for free, nothing but commercial programming. Don’t you think that those advertisements, that those commercials, had an effect on the buying and listening habits of the people watching? And don’t you think that the people making those commercials (e.g., both the songs and the videos that accompanied them) were effected by that paradigm shift? Summed up perfectly.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Aug 28, 2019 13:54:11 GMT
And don’t you think that the people making those commercials (e.g., both the songs and the videos that accompanied them) were effected by that paradigm shift? Not significantly, no. I don't think it substantially affected artists' vision, their muse, their inspiration - all of the things that affected their songwriting, the musicianship, the singing, etc. And THAT'S what affected the future of music. The songs. The music!
EDIT: If MTV or specifically the videos were so influential and directly affected "things", then MTV and other videos channels would've sustained and continued on with the SAME popularity. I don't know if MTV will go down in history as a "fad", but if MTV and VH1 and other music channels could contribute SUBSTANTIALLY to increased music sales, then the record companies would not have allowed them to fade away or become insignificant. They would've found a way, they would've insisted that they carry on.
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Aug 28, 2019 14:24:04 GMT
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.) ^this is pretty much my take on the issue. Appearance/image has always mattered. Always! It's human nature. The uglier and heavier you are, the less likely you are to succeed. It's unfair, but that's life. MTV and music videos just placed that much more importance on it. So, in the long run I think there is an argument to be made that it had a detrimental effect on music. Also, KDS mentioned MTV shifting away from hard rock in the early 90s or so. If that was a decision MTV made, then they deserve some of the blame for the genre's demise. But, is that entirely different from radio making similar decisions? Don't all genres fade away at some point? Personally, I have no attachment to MTV so I'm not going to spend much time defending it, but I've got nothing against music videos, themselves (not that I can remember the last one I cared for). Being a diehard Beatles fan, those promo videos are priceless! Watching live concert footage is (often) 100x more enjoyable than merely listening to the audio. Lennon's Imagine film which included footage of him recording the album in his home studio, a dream come true! I wish that existed for all my favorite albums. In regard to Britney Spears, honestly, I think those singles in the late 1990s/early 2000s would have been hits even if she never made a video for them. A photo shoot and live appearances would have been enough to solidify and sell her image. That's always been the case for attractive artists. It's the less attractive ones that are now at a greater disadvantage. If MTV or specifically the videos were so influential and directly affected "things", then MTV and other videos channels would've sustained and continued on with the SAME popularity. I don't know if MTV will go down in history as a "fad", but if MTV and VH1 and other music channels could contribute SUBSTANTIALLY to increased music sales, then the record companies would not have allowed them to fade away or become insignificant. They would've found a way, they would've insisted that they carry on. I think there's something to this.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Aug 28, 2019 14:24:45 GMT
And don’t you think that the people making those commercials (e.g., both the songs and the videos that accompanied them) were effected by that paradigm shift? Not significantly, no. I don't think it substantially affected artists' vision, their muse, their inspiration - all of the things that affected their songwriting, the musicianship, the singing, etc. And THAT'S what affected the future of music. The songs. The music!
EDIT: If MTV or specifically the videos were so influential and directly affected "things", then MTV and other videos channels would've sustained and continued on with the SAME popularity. I don't know if MTV will go down in history as a "fad", but if MTV and VH1 and other music channels could contribute SUBSTANTIALLY to increased music sales, then the record companies would not have allowed them to fade away or become insignificant. They would've found a way, they would've insisted that they carry on.
So, you haven't noticed a shift in the importance of image over substance in mainstream music over the past 25 years or so? Seems to me like musicians today who are in it solely for musicianship, singing, and songs are busting their asses playing clubs and trying to promote their music any way they can. Legacy artists have the luxury of a known brand to get by on, and can still archive a level of success, but I think it's much much more difficult for true musicians to rise above the underground in the post MTV era. Is that solely MTV's fault? Probably not entirely, but they played a part. And I think, mainstream pop culture suffered as a result.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Aug 28, 2019 14:30:57 GMT
Regarding Britney, I’ll say it: yes, 100%, she would not have been a star if she weren’t pretty and well marketed. SJS, you make a fatal flaw in your question about the listeners to her music in non-visual contexts (and actually kind of an ironic one considering the pushback you give me in our Brian Wilson solo career discussions). Think: whose music is it? The most AND LEAST important person in Britney Spears’ music career was Britney Spears. Without MTV (or more broadly, music magazines and TV in general), those songs might have been getting people out on the dance floor, but they would have been Max Martin songs. Or Some-Better-Singer songs. Without the visuals, there would have been no Britney Spears, even if some version of those songs existed coming out of someone else’s mouth. That is the impact of MTV, or the zeitgeist that made and sustained MTV. It existed to some extent before and since, but MTV was a game changer in that respect. As to the next part of the discussion, if it was so powerful, why did it go away? I think there were two main things, but this is my speculation. 1. The business model evolved, and maybe made a mistake. MTV went from Music Television to a pop culture station. You had the “I Love the [decade] kind of commentary shows, Pop-Up video type shows, reality TV, and even original programming. The focus spread, and became unfocused. They lost the story, basically. 2. The technology changed, and that changed the listening culture. People no longer were willing to sit down and watch television to wait for their favorite video (assuming the network was playing videos at that point anyway, which it wasn’t). The early 2000s were when downloading became so easy to do, and even some online video was happening (though durations were limited and quality was mediocre). But sitting around waiting for songs … that went away. The MTV model was an effective model for its time, but as always, times change.
|
|