PDA

View Full Version : MTV and the music industry



Ltlabner
01-11-2007, 04:53 PM
What has MTV's effect been on the music industry?

Has it been good, bad or just the normal progression of life?

NOTE: By MTV I mean the early 80's to 1993ish version of MTV that actually played music videos with some occasional off the wall programing (Adam Sandler, Keith Ober and Kari Wurer say thank you). Especially the early years where MTV was just looking for videos to play.

NJReds
01-11-2007, 04:58 PM
I would say that it's been bad for music, although I have no statistics to back me up. I think record labels started looking for artists that they could package visually and musically -- as opposed to just musically. I think that's affected female artists more so than male artists.

KronoRed
01-11-2007, 05:00 PM
Song quality no longer matters, it's all about looking good.

Johnny Footstool
01-11-2007, 05:01 PM
Mmm...Marisol Massey.

I agree with NJReds. MTV would never have played, say, Janis Ian or Janis Joplin. They're fixated on music product.

Joseph
01-11-2007, 05:11 PM
MTV is the devil.

Seriously, look behind them for the tail.

Roy Tucker
01-11-2007, 05:15 PM
I think its just a natural progression.

Style, hair, clothes, looks, etc. have always been a part of popular music. MTV accentuated that which probably is a negative from a pure musical standpoint. But only mildly so. It was already happening.

It did provide an additional creative outlet. It also provided another medium for new bands, music, etc. which is all positive IMHO.

BoydsOfSummer
01-11-2007, 05:38 PM
What does MTV have to do with music?

Ltlabner
01-11-2007, 05:55 PM
I agree with NJReds. MTV would never have played, say, Janis Ian or Janis Joplin. They're fixated on music product.

They did play Cindee Lauper, Paul Simon, Toto and Men at Work in heavy rotation in the early days. And none of them are too easy on the eyes.

But over time they have definatley shifted from a creative new format into pretty faces and watered down "music".

NJReds
01-11-2007, 05:59 PM
They did play Cindee Lauper, Paul Simon, Toto and Men at Work in heavy rotation in the early days. And none of them are too easy on the eyes.


In the early days, they needed filler. I mean Hall & Oates was a staple in the rotation.

Once it got going though, it was all about the 'look'...particularly for women.

Ltlabner
01-11-2007, 06:01 PM
In the early days, they needed filler. I mean Hall & Oates was a staple in the rotation..

Are you claiming that Mr. Prono Mustache isn't good looking? I'm appauled.

Redsland
01-12-2007, 11:34 AM
In the early days, they needed filler.
Yep. Mtv simply played what they had on hand.

It was the industry that responded with "lookers" and gave us Belinda Carlisle and The New Kids on the Block.

MrCinatit
01-12-2007, 11:44 AM
They did play Cindee Lauper, Paul Simon, Toto and Men at Work in heavy rotation in the early days. And none of them are too easy on the eyes.

But over time they have definatley shifted from a creative new format into pretty faces and watered down "music".


I had a crush on Cindee Lauper.
MTV lead to a bastardization of music which lead to the Spice Girls, Vanilla Ice and Millie Vanillie; and continues to day with Britney, Christina, the *****cat Dolls, American Idol and almost all of country music.
On the popular scene, it is no longer about the music - it is about getting a pretty face and putting it to music.


Or, maybe I'm just getting old.

NJReds
01-12-2007, 11:46 AM
Yep. Mtv simply played what they had on hand.

It was the industry that responded with "lookers" and gave us Belinda Carlisle and The New Kids on the Block.


Absolutely, it was an evolution. And ultimately, I guess you can say that while MTV was the vehicle, the consumers drove that evolution to the point where someone like Britney Spears could become a chart-topper.

Redsland
01-12-2007, 12:32 PM
Absolutely. Can you imagine Bob Dylan becoming a superstar today? I can't.

vaticanplum
01-12-2007, 12:41 PM
Absolutely. Can you imagine Bob Dylan becoming a superstar today? I can't.

There have been good ones who have squeaked through to superstardom while still being genuinely good, valid bands: Radiohead, Pearl Jam, Oasis come to mind. Notably, though, they've done it while pretty much avoiding MTV.

I do think it's romanticism to say that there's crap on the radio these days more than in the past. There was an awful lot of bubble gum crap on the radio in the 60s, an awful lot of drone rock in the 70s, an awful lot of crap, period, in the 80s, etc. And a lot of those people got a good chance due to their looks too, even before MTV. We just don't remember it so well because, of course, it did not survive. And Britney Spears won't be on the radio in 25 years either. The sheer amount of money changing hands for this crap these days is ridiculous, but I think that would have happened without MTV anyway.

Redsland
01-12-2007, 01:00 PM
And Britney Spears won't be on the radio in 25 years either.
I hope you're right, but Dexy's Midnight Runners and The Bangels have been getting a frightening amount of airplay lately.

:runawaycr

I agree that crap music isn't a new phenomenon. I like '80's music, but the '80's were crap. None of the other rock decades were immune, either, as you note.

I think the big difference in popular music now is that everything is so fractured. Way back when, people either listened to Q102 or WEBN. Their parents listened to WARM98. That was about it. Now there are so many stations catering to so many genres that it's tough to stay current with it all. And small labels, despite the proliferation of stations, still get short shrift.

Today it's possible to be completely unaware of a massively popular act like Brooks and Dunn or T.I. That would've been impossible a generation ago, when everything "popular" made its way onto one of two or three stations. In general I like the greater amount of variety out there, but everything seems so compartmentalized that if you don't force yourself to move around the dial from time to time, you'll never get exposed to things that might have forced their way into the mainstream back then.

I guess I'm saying that not only is much of the music "safe," but so are the stations themselves.

harangatang
01-12-2007, 01:29 PM
When Elton John was asked about his thoughts of the Ashlee Simpson lipsynching inident a few years his answer was the best description of the modern music industry. His response was that music industry no longer exists as it has become strictly the entertainment industry. There are good musical artists out there today such as Michael Buble but they don't reach the mainstream. In the mid to late '90's music itself started to push back with the onset of punk-ska and neo-swing genres seeing brief mainstream success. Ska-punk bands like No Doubt, the Mighty Mighty Bosstones, and Reel Big Fish tore up the radio with punk, reggae, and ska elements with catchy horn riffs and upbeat guitars. Neo-swing bands such as the Cherry Poppin' Daddies, the Brian Setzer Orchestra, and Big Bad Voodoo Daddy started playing upbeat swing with horns, piano, etc. The lack of sustained mainstream success can be attributed to a couple things. First of all the lack of depth of the quality of bands attributed to an overall infiltration of the radio. The second and most important thing was the lack of the demand of the quality of music by the consumer. Most people these days don't want music. They would rather have the Britney Spears type acting like she's all innocent or a rapper rhythmically reciting erotic lyrically poetry to a 10 second cut of a Stevie Wonder song. It's really ashame that music hasn't improved with technology and it's kind of weird to note a retrogression in the quality with improved technology.

vaticanplum
01-12-2007, 01:41 PM
When Elton John was asked about his thoughts of the Ashlee Simpson lipsynching inident a few years his answer was the best description of the modern music industry. His response was that music industry no longer exists as it has become strictly the entertainment industry. There are good musical artists out there today such as Michael Buble but they don't reach the mainstream. In the mid to late '90's music itself started to push back with the onset of punk-ska and neo-swing genres seeing brief mainstream success. Ska-punk bands like No Doubt, the Mighty Mighty Bosstones, and Reel Big Fish tore up the radio with punk, reggae, and ska elements with catchy horn riffs and upbeat guitars. Neo-swing bands such as the Cherry Poppin' Daddies, the Brian Setzer Orchestra, and Big Bad Voodoo Daddy started playing upbeat swing with horns, piano, etc. The lack of sustained mainstream success can be attributed to a couple things. First of all the lack of depth of the quality of bands attributed to an overall infiltration of the radio. The second and most important thing was the lack of the demand of the quality of music by the consumer. Most people these days don't want music. They would rather have the Britney Spears type acting like she's all innocent or a rapper rhythmically reciting erotic lyrically poetry to a 10 second cut of a Stevie Wonder song. It's really ashame that music hasn't improved with technology and it's kind of weird to note a retrogression in the quality with improved technology.

I really disagree. I think there's just as much good music out there as there's ever been, but people just have to work to find it. Elton John has always been part of a bigger and more public part of the music industry. With all due respect to him (and I love Elton John), his music, while good, has always been part of entertainment. People who are stuck in that world are bound to see that world. There is a huge underground music industry that is producing quality stuff that has little to do with mass entertainment and there always has been. I know a great number of people who make quality music that they love, either as musicians or as producers or as executives, and they do it for a living and are very happy with it. It doesn't get out to as many people as the "entertainment" genre, but it is most definitely there and it has an audience.

Many of the very best bands in history were largely unknown, but they survive. One of my favorite bands ever is Television and they certainly fall into that category. There were bands during their time who sold billions more records; Television didn't, but they're still touring and still good. That's just always been the case and will continue to be. The only major difference I see is that in the past, many major, popular bands were also viable musically, even regardless of personal taste (Beatles, Stones, Zeppelin). It's harder to find bands of that magnitude these days who are that good...but it's harder to find bands of that magnitude today, period, because the industry and the demographics of people buying records have changed so much. Fewer and fewer older people are buying records; they're spending their money on things that weren't available in the past: expensive electronics, DVDs, etc. Meanwhile younger kids have more disposable income than they used to so they're the ones buying records. Tastes haven't changed that much on a great scale. Demographics have.

I do think that the internet and so forth are good for music...any band can get its stuff out there to thousands in a second. It hasn't completely happened yet, but in time I think this will cause bands to really have to do something to stand out against all that competition, and it will be a natural weeding out of sorts. It's going to be very interesting.

Redsland
01-12-2007, 02:06 PM
Speaking of Led Zeppelin, on this date in 1969 they released their eponymous debut album.

Johnny Footstool
01-12-2007, 02:07 PM
It's not just music. Individual taste is subjective, be it music, food, clothing, art, etc.

Budweiser is the world's top-selling beer. It's not the best tasting beer in the world, but it's got a mild flavor that appeals to (or at least doesn't offend) the majority of people. There are beers with more flavor, but taste is very subjective and robust flavors don't necessarily appeal to the majority.

Yachtzee
01-12-2007, 02:26 PM
I actually think that in the early days, MTV was very instrumental in opening up the country to a broader spectrum of music than we previously had exposure to. Before I had MTV, my music choices were limited to pretty much what was available on the radio. The radio, at least in Cleveland, was as it is today, dictated by the whims of the program directors, many of whom push a very limited variety of music they deem popular (or the record companies "pay" them to deem so). MTV, on the other hand, was like a breath of fresh air. You may call it filler, but early MTV would air just about anyone who put out a music video, which wasn't a common thing when it first came on the air. Therefore, they couldn't just stick with one "format" like the radio stations did. I could see Devo, followed by Van Halen, followed by Run-DMC, followed by Madonna. If I didn't like a song/video, I knew one I would like would be on shortly. I don't think I would have ever been exposed to a lot of New Wave, College Music, Rap, or even a lot of Heavy Metal if it had not been for MTV. It may seem like they played a lot of crap back in the '80s, but that's likely just because the music industry put out a lot of crap. I think you had a better chance of finding out about a new band that you would love on MTV than you would on the radio...well at least here in the midwest.

NJReds
01-12-2007, 02:31 PM
...and then there's American Idol, taking music to another 'level' :help:


Bob Dylan bores me to tears -- Simon CowellFri Jan 12, 2007 9:25 AM ET

LOS ANGELES, Jan 11 (Reuters Life!) - Don't expect to see Bob Dylan joining the celebrities on "American Idol" anytime soon.

One of the show's judges, Simon Cowell, says he has never bought a Dylan record because he "bores me to tears."

The British pop impresario says in the February issue of Playboy that he would "plug my ears and run in the other direction" if he were to see a 21-year-old Dylan singing "Blowin' in the Wind."

Cowell, 47, is not known for holding back when it comes to issuing verdicts on the wannabe stars who flock to the top-rated talent show. Last season, he said a female contestant was so fat that the stage should be enlarged, and he suggested that another hopeful should shave his beard and wear a dress.

On the other hand, he told Playboy that inaugural champ Kelly Clarkson is "a young Aretha Franklin," and he much preferred her music to Dylan's.

LoganBuck
01-12-2007, 02:33 PM
MTV to Music

as

Taco Bell is to Authentic Mexican Food

Redsland
01-12-2007, 03:14 PM
I actually think that in the early days, MTV was very instrumental in opening up the country to a broader spectrum of music than we previously had exposure to.... Therefore, they couldn't just stick with one "format" like the radio stations did. I could see Devo, followed by Van Halen, followed by Run-DMC, followed by Madonna.... I don't think I would have ever been exposed to a lot of New Wave, College Music, Rap, or even a lot of Heavy Metal if it had not been for MTV.
I wholeheartedly agree with this. I'm sure I never would have heard of ZZ Top or Run-DMC without Mtv.

Hap
01-12-2007, 11:35 PM
I wholeheartedly agree with this. I'm sure I never would have heard of ZZ Top or Run-DMC without Mtv.

On the other hand, they also brought us The Jets.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/17/Christmas_With_The_Jets_%281986%29.jpg

Ltlabner
01-13-2007, 08:40 AM
http://www.gocontinental.com/photos3/AtlanticS.jpg

And lest we forget......

GAC
01-13-2007, 08:57 AM
MTV was simply a stage for advertising/promoting bands old and new. Would some bands have ever made it, like Men At Work, if not for the exposure on MTV?

MrCinatit
01-13-2007, 09:01 AM
On the other hand, he told Playboy that inaugural champ Kelly Clarkson is "a young Aretha Franklin," and he much preferred her music to Dylan's.

Oh...yikes. :bang:

cincyinco
01-14-2007, 05:08 PM
Look no further than MTV's and Puff Daddy's "Making the Band" - which turned into a crappy female pop group known as "danity kane" - for evidence as to how MTV has influenced the music industry negatively.

"bands" are put together based on look - music is written by others for them to perform, and poorly IMO.

You really have to get beyond MTV to find good music these days. If you ever watch any of MTV's actual video channels, its the same ol' crap recycled hour after hour. Justin Timberlake, Christina Augilara, Shakira, Ciara, etc, over and over and over again. I think one night at a friends house I ended up hearing/watching the same video more than a dozen times on 2 of their channels within 4 hours.

MTV was my alter growing up as a kid, when there was only one MTV channel, and it actually played music vids.. now adays MTV is teh suck

Yachtzee
01-14-2007, 09:31 PM
I don't think MTV is the place where you go to look for the best new music anymore. May have been that way, back when you could watch shows like 120 Minutes, Yo MTV Raps! and Headbanger's Ball. But now you don't need to watch MTV for that when you can just as easily find that stuff online. Plus you don't have to wait around all day to catch that new video you were waiting to see. The MTV of today reflects marketing data that teenagers don't want a whole day of music videos. They'd rather watch a whole day of kids in their late teens and early 20s making fools of themselves on some reality show. I can remember when the Real World was actually a rather innovative idea and was compelling TV, just because they pulled a bunch of people from different walks of life, just to see how they'd get along. Once that got stale, they shifted to trying to find the most controversial people they could find. From what I hear, they've now resorted to finding the naughtiest people they can find.

I can remember when VH1 began, showing videos to cater to the baby boomers. It too went the way of ditching music videos in favor of reality shows and their ever popular nostalgia shows. But does anyone really sit around and watch music videos all day like they used to?

The one thing I miss from old MTV is Liquid Television.