20 years of hell on MTV

[LoafingOaf]

Seeing as I have no life, I made the mistake of tuning in MTV
yesterday hoping to catch the movie awards. But instead they
had this incredibly irritating special about the past 20
years in music. Did anyone witness this horrible program?
Basically, they showed clips from the who's who of terrible
music acts from the past 20 years (with one or two decent ones, like Nirvana), and mixed those together with commentary from various
artists such as Dave Grohl, Tom PEtty, John Mellencamp, Papa Roach,
Gwen Stafani. What made me so sad was seeing these artists doing the commentaries. Because no one had a single negative thing to say about anyone! And they had some pretty awful stuff on there, like Bon Jovi,
Guns and Roses, and so forth. This is why I'm glad Morrissey has
never been an MTV favorite artist. I would be seriously depressed to see Morrissey trying hard to say something kind about Bon Jovi or Axl Rose. We know he'd never do such a thing. But why does a decent guy like Dave Grohl turn himself into, well, essentially as big a kiss ass as Chris Connelly or Kurt Loder? Wat was also distressing was I could sense that a lot of these musicians look at the videos of other musicians like a business man does. Not Grohl, but many of the others. You can tell that music is a career to them, and watching MTV for them is like reading Business Week. And acting as Kurt Loder
or some music biz politician is a good way to ensure kind treatment from the biz.

And yet I also know that these kinds of shows get done so often,
pumping up the same awful music, that somehow it becomes established in the masses' minds that these are the artists who mattered, that it is official and these are who deserve the be remembered. It's like that silly AFI Best Films list, but even worse because here it is MTV picking the most significant artists based on who they themselves cynically picked over the past 20 years to support.

But what angered me the most was when everyone started talking about the cycles in music. How while MTV artists today are like some kind of sick ANdrew Lloyd Webber show with no substance whatsoever, somewhere out there new bands will come along with something different. Do I have to be the one to point out that those artists ALREADY EXIST right now? That those albums are released week after week? That in clubs all over those bands are playing right now?
The reason Nirvana started a new cycle ten years ago was because the
music execs decided to sign them and give them wide exposure. Oh, sure, there are generational cycles in music, I'm not denying that, but the idea that the reason 100% of the music played on corporate outlets right now is completely idiotic is a result of something other than the cynical decisions of bean counters is very upsetting to me. And no one will ever convince me that that over-priced, over-long, and seriously boring "November Rain" video MTV used to play to death was a significant moment in music to anyone other than money-makers and Axl's stupid model girlfriend who starred in it.

Anyway, I guess I'm wasting my time worrying about all this. I just get concerned by the way people are increasingly just accepting the choices in music, movies, etc., that marketers push on them.

 

[Lifeguard Sleeping]

...And No End in Sight!

> What made me so sad was seeing these artists doing
> the commentaries. Because no one had a single negative thing to
> say about anyone! And they had some pretty awful stuff on there,
> like Bon Jovi,
> Guns and Roses, and so forth.

MTV has NEVER been a place of open-mindedness and conflicts of opinion. MTV is its own publicity machine. The entire content of this channel is an advertizement for itself.

> ...here it is MTV picking the most significant
> artists based on who they themselves cynically picked over the
> past 20 years to support.

...or artists who supported MTV, like Madonna (they've had this mutual "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" understanding for YEARS now).

> Anyway, I guess I'm wasting my time worrying about all this. I
> just get concerned by the way people are increasingly just
> accepting the choices in music, movies, etc., that marketers
> push on them.

I know - it's heartbreaking when you let yourself become preoccupied with it. But you're either part of the MTV juggernaut, or you're not. None of the bands I listen to (for the most part) have anything to do with MTV (and vice-versa) and although sometimes I feel really out-of-the-loop because I can't tell a Korn song from a Limp Bizkit song, or wouldn't be able to pick the lead singer of Blink 182 out of a line-up, or really CAN'T differentiate between who's a member of the Backstreet Boys and who's in N'Sync, I just say to myself: who gives a $hit?? I'm NOT going to let MTV, Rolling Stone or the major record companies shape my taste in music or tell me what I SHOULD and SHOULDN'T be aware of.

Does Justin Timberlake know anything about Morrissey or the Smiths?

Does he know ANYTHING about "modern rock" music from MTV's heyday?

Probably not, and no one cares, yet MTV would STILL ask him to wax philosophically about the most significant artists of its history, regarless of whether or not he could differentiate between an "artist" and just some flavor-of-the-week whose video has broken a record on TRL.

Reminds me of when Britney Spears was asked a similar question and she just went on and on about Madonna.

C'mon, Britney. You were born in what, 1982? By the time you were belting 'em out on "Star Search" and old enough to be aware of Madonna's significance, she had already hit the peak of her stardom and influence on young girls.

By the time you turned 11, Madonna was getting more notoriety from her "Sex" book and swearing Letterman up and down on the Late Show, than for anything she did, musically.

Influence, my a$$ - you were probably just reading off of MTV's TelePrompTer.