Video Killed The Radio Star

[VR_Jay]

I heard the most disturbing comment from my sister the other day: "I really like Shenia Twain, she's really pretty. And she can sing well too." That is what is wrong with the music business today, its all about the looks and the music (if you can call it that) plays second fiddle.

Since when has the meter for a good musician based on how hot he or she is? I thought to be a good music artist, you had to be a good music artist. But take one look at MTV and you will see it isn't so. The only ones who make it are the ones who are easy on the eyes. The music business won't look at you twice if you don't meet a standard for attractiveness. Heck, even American Idol, a show I thought was about who was the best singer, gives all the contestants a makeover so that they are more "photogenic" and "camera friendly." It saddens me, really.

What is worse, it seems the VH1 is being lead down this path of darkness as well; as their attention focuses less and less on music and more and more on beautiful celebrities. It is now an undeniable fact: if you look hot enough, you can do anything. Just look at Hilary Duff.... <_<
_________________
[img]http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y47/VR_Jay/Anti_Commecial_Banners_by_Nevar530.jpg[/img] [img]http://s2.photobucket.com/albums/y47/VR_Jay/th_myvsweetkiss1xc.gif[/img]

[color=black]"Your toast is burnt and no amount of scraping will remove the black stuff!" ~ Caboose, Red vs. Blue[/color]

[Lasher]

You know what, this is really sad because i am a big fan, but i don't know what the guys of Tool look like. And honestly, i couldn't care.

To men, if a man, or woman for that fact, are that artistic and good at what they do, they automatically have this attractive thing going for them in my eyes.

They guys of tool don't do videos. they have them made, they're expressive, artistic, creative. I like that. And although i'm a big fan, for anyone who might be questioning how i could be and not know what they look like. I don't buy cd's. I don't buy magazines, or newspapers, or go search for pictures of them. I let other people do that.

But yeah, the whole outer beauty thing is a bit much these days. it's starting to becoming disgusting now.

[VR_Jay]

Have you seen that show "Your face or mine?" it sickens me. Lets make a gameshow based entirely on the audience voting for who is hotter. The hotter your are, the more money you are bound to win. It is disgusting. <_<

I don't know what tool looks like either. Or Gorillaz, for that matter. I like not knowing what the artist looks like.
_________________
[img]http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y47/VR_Jay/Anti_Commecial_Banners_by_Nevar530.jpg[/img] [img]http://s2.photobucket.com/albums/y47/VR_Jay/th_myvsweetkiss1xc.gif[/img]

[color=black]"Your toast is burnt and no amount of scraping will remove the black stuff!" ~ Caboose, Red vs. Blue[/color]

[Lasher]

Yeah, me either. I actually like the animated videos better to you know. And it gives the bands that air of mystery to them that i oh so like. It keeps you interested, and yet, able to appreciate their music more than how they look.

[fallenangel]

Ok, no surprise, but I have a loooooong opinion on this matter. So if you don't want to hear it, fine, skim, whatever, but it does involve numerous references to pretty boys and makeup. I know it reads a bit like a history lesson, but just go with me here. And someone read it, 'cause I actually put thought into this. How often do I put thought into something I say?

So 70s glam is big, David Bowie, Aerosmith, Alice Cooper and the like. It's a stage show, an image, something to make the performance visual. If a band doesn't have a good performance, why go watch them live? You can listen to the record for a lot cheaper than a concert ticket. And a good image/stage show is fun. It's a party.

New York Dolls come out, a new phase of glam. Instead of glitter, scarves, and theatrics, it's makeup and big hair. The classic Hollywood beauty for women, put on less than beautiful men. Hanoi Rocks also start with the huge hair, bright colors, makeup, bangles, and loud fashion. Van Halen (late 70s as well) with Diamond Dave's spandex and acrobatics are a huge hit, combined with Eddie's playing. Motley Crue are difficult to place. They start with a KISS/New York Dolls influence and evolve with the times throughout the 80s, switching to something new as soon as a look is getting bloated. Twisted Sister looked like something straight out of a comic book, as you know. Can barely classify them as glam. But their look was still loud, bright, showy.

Ok, so all that's going on and is huge in the clubs and is what's popular at the time. MTV comes along to showcase that. You can buy a record, and sure there's an album cover, but that doesn't capture the band's show, their energy, their personality. A video can. You can take a band like Twisted Sister or Motley Crue and show people what they're about. There's an old video for the Crue song Live Wire before the days of MTV. It's extremely low budget, but it serves its purpose. Shows the band performing and brings the stage show to people who can't/haven't seen it for themselves. MTV didn't create that. Bands didn't change their look just to be played on MTV. Yes, some artists with a poor image or boring show didn't make it and weren't played. That's the way it goes. Not everyone is suited for every media outlet.

Then the "trouble" starts, as far as the idea of MTV destroying music goes. New York Dolls tried to look like ugly women. Then comes (for the sake of a single example, though there were multiple groups) Poison, looking like pretty women. They take the glam look to a new level with an airbrushed image, louder clothes, more makeup. You could say this about Bon Jovi and Def Leppard and the like, as well, but we're gonna go with Poison because I can (and because I can give better details). They were created after the birth of MTV. So you could, I suppose, say they were an MTV band. But they weren't. They didn't dress that way to get their video played or to conform to a record label's idea of what was popular.

That's the way bands looked. Look at nearly any band from the Sunset Strip in those years, hell almost any PERSON there, and that was the popular look. It wasn't about videos or MTV, it was a scene that happened to transfer well to video. And I always have to laugh a bit when people say "Poison was such a commercial band." Oh? Is that why every label passed on them at least twice? Nobody wanted them. Until their second single and video was a hit. Then all the other bands that looked that way were signed and you see the huge wave of poofy haired glam bands. It happened to work well on video, it was huge, but it wasn't the fault of MTV. They didn't cause the look, it was already there. And I know you're talking about modern times where there's no talent, and these bands certainly had talent, but this is where the "MTV destroyed music" argument usually starts. People look back at its birth and think all those bands were designed to sell on MTV. Not true.

But then you see a bit of a change in the industry. It's no different than has always happened, the industry changes to fit what's popular. But with MTV, right from the beginning it was used as a way of measuring what was popular at the time. And then instead of it being a new sound on the radio that was popular, it was also a new image. Poison is huge, so someone else goes and signs a similar band to compete. Guns n' Roses hits (another band no record label wanted to touch) so they run out and sign whoever has a similar look or sound to make up for missing Gn'R. It's a competition for money, always has been. It is, after all, an industry and the bottom line for them is profits. They sign the most popular band, not always the most talented band, because they'll make the most money for the label.

Unfortunately it's getting to an extreme, and I agree it's pathetic. It's not a fun stage show being brought to the masses anymore, it's a pretty face with someone else's songs. It's not even about who will be the next huge thing anymore like Guns was or Bon Jovi was. It's about who they can get 15 minutes out of with the next teen fad. Teens have always loved bubblegum music. There's been bubblegum since the beginning of pop music. Appealing to the teen masses is quick money, but lately...where's the big artists? Where's the Alice Coopers, the Stones, the Def Leppards, the David Bowies. Yes there's artists like Britney Spears, but those are bubblegum. There were huge bubblegum artists back then, too. 99% of attention is being put on the manufactured, easy to digest, completely empty crap that teenagers love for three years then grow out of.

The teen pop scene is bloated. It's been given a face lift by way of Avril, those couple jazz-ish chicks, shakira, christina, all kinds of slight variations, but it's all basically the same thing. And the fact their original fan base is growing up is starting to show. Their attendance is suffering. The new bubblegum fanbase is more into Good Charlotte and the new pop-punk trend. There's no huge revolution like there was for every other phase. Classic rock, punk, disco, new wave, glam, grunge, it all had its place and revolutionary artists. The 90s and so far this decade have been a slow haze from one boring trend to another. No one stands out, no one is amazing, no one has a damn thing to say (I'm not counting older artists that are still hanging around). Every new little band is hailed as the "saviors of rock", but it's not happening. The Darkness? Please. They're a joke. Like their tunes, like what they do all you want, but people are laughing at them. Sure some may go along with it, and a revival of those times would be great, but they're too over the top. People look at them as a funny parody of old glam rock, not as a serious revival of it. You don't even hear about them anymore.

Do I have a point to all this? Maybe. Besides defending my boys as not being MTV's bitches and MTV not being the destruction of music at its core. Yeah it's the means, but if not MTV it would be something else. And don't get me wrong, after 1992 I hate MTV with a passion. New staff, new direction, it blows. They're completely in it for money and have no comprehension of the reason for its creation in the first place. I had a separate rant about that somewhere.

As for VH1, it's not that they're going in the direction of pretty celebs, though they are a little bit. They gave Aerosmith more spins than MTV did by far. They're going the way of nostalgia, due to the success of I Love the 80s. Just like anything else, they're going to milk every last penny from the trend until it's completely tired. I posted an article in the music forum months ago about their decision to produce more shows focusing on nostalgia because they've determined that's what people want to see. Yeah, they want to see that in one program, one time because it's new. Not ten different remakes of it. But of course they don't understand that.

I know there's a lot of people that hate on bands who have a loud image, and I understand why, but you can't throw a record label created "made-to-sell" prepackaged artist in with the ones with respectable images, even though they're extremely few and far between these days. An image is part of the show, bigger than life rock stars, it's a fuckin' party. I want to go to a concert and see C.C. DeVille in leather pants and a pink fur hat, not a pair of ripped jeans and t-shirt lookin' like the guy that pumps my gas. An image is not, by its nature, bad. It's very good. It sets a band apart from the rest, gets them noticed, amplifies what their tunes are about, and is one hell of a good time at the shows. That's why I like glam. It's big, loud, in your face, flashy, attention-grabbing, and fuckin' fun. It has nothing to do with covering up for a lack of talent or substance. No, most of the music wasn't U2, but it wasn't made to be.

Now current day artists, yes, the pretty face and cute artists definitely sell the cheap songs. If you put an ugly or even average looking person on MTV, no matter how talented, people would rip them apart for not being attractive. It's sick and an insult to music, but it's not going anywhere. The industry is out to make money. My opinion is, with current technology what it is, it's much easier for bands to self-produce records. As Metal Sludge says, with today's tools you could record Dr. Feelgood in your bedroom. There's less pressure for a major label release, except for the likes of Good Charlotte, Linkin Park, all the groups that are supposed to be the big sellers. Bands on independent labels generally put out better material. It may not have the huge budget, and it may not sell 2 million copies, but at least it exists. And with online ordering, you're all set.

I've barely bought any major label releases in years. Most of my favorite bands are on small labels and put out records that don't go gold or platinum anymore, but the bands keep making music because they've had their glory days and are just continuing to do what they love. And they've still got big fanbases because they were good, their music lasts. I'd bet my life that most of today's bubblegum artists won't keep performing, certainly not as they are now. Their fanbase grows up, gets tired of them.

At least that's one bright side. Bubblegum is always destined to fade away, but great artists are remembered and stick around. Not always in the same form or lineup (ie Gn'R), but the performers keep at it because they like making music, not because they want a quick paycheck or fame and will swing from the label's balls to get it.

I think I'd better shut up now or I'll be typing all night. Your own fault for bringing up such a topic around me. Somebody better have read all that shit I just spent half an hour writing.
_________________
"I care about people as much as I care about lawn furniture" - Dexter/Michael C. Hall

[LadyoftheDeadlyDance]

[quote]I think I'd better shut up now or I'll be typing all night. Your own fault for bringing up such a topic around me.  Somebody better have read all that s**t I just spent half an hour writing. [/quote]

I read it ^_^ , and I agree wholeheartedly. It's not just MTV that help in the destruction of music, it's typical American culture that has really sent the business to go down hill. I mean, look at the techology we have today? People can have boob jobs, nose jobs, lyposuction, and who better to paste this change onto than the "artists" we see everyday. In the ever evolving effort for humans to reach perfection, we are, in fact, destroying ourselves. It happened in the middle ages with the influence of relgion, and now it's happening with crap music and a pretty face. It's mind control, all of it.

[VR_Jay]

Fallen: first of all, I did not once attack glam rock during my rant. they were of the time when both the image and the music was real. MTV was even respectable then. It is in the mid 90's that it crashed and burned. The problem with MTV is that it no longer focuses on music; heck, it doesn't even give it a sidewards glance.

Bubblegum-throwaway-pop is the devil. I hate it for the way that it cheapens music down to something that can be packaged and sold to the teeming masses. One of the first things I did with my little sister was to make sure that she got as little of that as humanly possible. I will not have one of my own listening to that crap.

Big revolutionary artists? The only one who I think could even come close is EMINEM, and that's really stretching it. Rock how it should be is dying, giving away to the manufactured "get rich quick" moneymakers. The real artists never even get a chance. You know John Mayer? My junior year English teacher can sing twenty times better than him, play the guitar like a f**king demon out of hell, and has been trying (unsuccessfully) to get a record deal for the past ten years. Why? Because he doesn't have that "cute boy" look to him. He is good looking, but not what the media would consider a hottie.

I fear for the state music is in, and I often find myself falling back to the tried and true bands and artists, ignoring the current main stream more and more. Will the messiah appear to lead these fallen sheep away from the mass-media schlock it's trapped itself in? Probably not, but I'll keep looking.
_________________
[img]http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y47/VR_Jay/Anti_Commecial_Banners_by_Nevar530.jpg[/img] [img]http://s2.photobucket.com/albums/y47/VR_Jay/th_myvsweetkiss1xc.gif[/img]

[color=black]"Your toast is burnt and no amount of scraping will remove the black stuff!" ~ Caboose, Red vs. Blue[/color]

[fallenangel]

You skimmed, didn't you?

"And I know you're talking about modern times where there's no talent, and these bands certainly had talent, but this is where the "MTV destroyed music" argument usually starts. People look back at its birth and think all those bands were designed to sell on MTV. Not true."

"Unfortunately it's getting to an extreme, and I agree it's pathetic. It's not a fun stage show being brought to the masses anymore, it's a pretty face with someone else's songs. It's not even about who will be the next huge thing anymore like Guns was or Bon Jovi was. It's about who they can get 15 minutes out of with the next teen fad. "

"The 90s and so far this decade have been a slow haze from one boring trend to another. No one stands out, no one is amazing, no one has a damn thing to say (I'm not counting older artists that are still hanging around). Every new little band is hailed as the "saviors of rock", but it's not happening"

"Now current day artists, yes, the pretty face and cute artists definitely sell the cheap songs. If you put an ugly or even average looking person on MTV, no matter how talented, people would rip them apart for not being attractive. It's sick and an insult to music, but it's not going anywhere. The industry is out to make money. "

And I pretty much covered the fact there are no stand out artists and the benefit of indy labels, but I'm too lazy to copy that, too.

Never said you were attacking glam, but that's where the whole competing with an image started. They signed Warrant to compete with Poison. Now they sign a bunch of pretty little girls to compete with Britney. It's no different, just lacking the music. It's all bubblegum instead of some bubblegum and some actual music. And it's not going anywhere. The old industry isn't coming back. There's more money to be made in 15 minute bubblegum artists.
_________________
"I care about people as much as I care about lawn furniture" - Dexter/Michael C. Hall

[VR_Jay]

No, I read the entire thing. I was just restating some of your better points and generally making sure we were on the same page. Didn't want you to think I was attacking glam rock in any way. I'm pretty sure we are in agreement, so ok. ^_^
_________________
[img]http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y47/VR_Jay/Anti_Commecial_Banners_by_Nevar530.jpg[/img] [img]http://s2.photobucket.com/albums/y47/VR_Jay/th_myvsweetkiss1xc.gif[/img]

[color=black]"Your toast is burnt and no amount of scraping will remove the black stuff!" ~ Caboose, Red vs. Blue[/color]

[Lasher]

My friend Jon from school likes that John Mayor or whatever guy. He went to see him a few weeks ago in Central Park in NYC. The guy is okay, but in all honest truth, he's just so damn lame and boring. There is nothing, [i]nothing[/i] that stands out about that guy at all. Which is why i have trouble figuring out why my friend Jon likes him, cause you know, this kid is really muscially talented and can actually write and compose it really well. *sighs* oh well.


I hate MTV, it basically stands for everything i hate now day. It's so degrading to everyone in every age group, and label that our society puts on us. it makes me sick really.

[fallenangel]

Yeah, just specifying that MTV after 1992 sucks. Before that it kicked ass.
_________________
"I care about people as much as I care about lawn furniture" - Dexter/Michael C. Hall

[ragingflea002]

MTV
M=Motherfucking
T=Terrible
V=Videos


_________________
Not all who wander are lost.
"The separation between spirit and logic is reasonable because spirit is defined by faith and logic forces others to think about what they have faith in."

[fallenangel]

After 1992.
_________________
"I care about people as much as I care about lawn furniture" - Dexter/Michael C. Hall

[ragingflea002]

Hell yeah.

There needs to be a rock station that is so damn controversial, it will bash all artists that suck ass immediately without having to suck up to them like Late Night talk show hosts.

Problem is, the fuckin' FCC.
_________________
Not all who wander are lost.
"The separation between spirit and logic is reasonable because spirit is defined by faith and logic forces others to think about what they have faith in."

[fallenangel]

Metal Sludge show, Sundays on The Boneyard. XM Radio. God I want it... But they'll tell ya what fuckin' sucks. And won't play any of it, either. Actually the whole thing is great since there's no censoring.
_________________
"I care about people as much as I care about lawn furniture" - Dexter/Michael C. Hall

[Lasher]

thats why you were talking abouthte boneyard! it has metal sludge! really? god damn i need to get that. lol.

And yeah, before 92, it was alllllll good and great. The last twelve years though suck major donkey dick

[fallenangel]

Yeah their show's relatively new. Since late May. The Boneyard as a station is the best. Some groups get better rotation than when they were first released. Really cool stuff. Tons of old rock/metal from before 1992.
_________________
"I care about people as much as I care about lawn furniture" - Dexter/Michael C. Hall

[VR_Jay]

[quote="Lasher (Lasher)"] My friend Jon from school likes that John Mayor or whatever guy. He went to see him a few weeks ago in Central Park in NYC. The guy is okay, but in all honest truth, he's just so damn lame and boring. There is nothing, [i]nothing[/i] that stands out about that guy at all. Which is why i have trouble figuring out why my friend Jon likes him, cause you know, this kid is really muscially talented and can actually write and compose it really well. *sighs* oh well. [/quote]
*shrugs shoulders* the reason i was referring to John Mayer is because Mr. Lancaster (the english teacher) makes fun of him all the time; during class, during his performances, it's great!
_________________
[img]http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y47/VR_Jay/Anti_Commecial_Banners_by_Nevar530.jpg[/img] [img]http://s2.photobucket.com/albums/y47/VR_Jay/th_myvsweetkiss1xc.gif[/img]

[color=black]"Your toast is burnt and no amount of scraping will remove the black stuff!" ~ Caboose, Red vs. Blue[/color]

[DaBear]

well Im not gonna get all long winded but....sex has always sold in the rock music buisness! be it guys or gals! not to many bands even in my day that didnt have a pretty boy or foxy girl as a lead singer. the difference (they could).

the Beatles could have had any wives they wanted, and yes women swooned over them, Elvis Presley, Linda Rondstad, Lindsey Buckingham and Stevie Nicks, Rodger Daultry, David Bowie, Sting, Gary Puckett (even though I think he was gay), Petula Clarke, Diana Ross, Debbie Harris, I could go on! bands always had to have someone good looking out front to attract the opposite sex male or female!

we have to come to the realization that sex sells! just you have to come to the realization that if they suck as a singer dont buy thier albums. I always loved the little sex kitten Sammantha Fox, as a singer she sucked, but Id lose my left (well you get my point)....never bought her albums, but I bought her times page2 paper of her topless....
_________________
'It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first.' - Ronald Reagan

[Raymei]

T.T I....Hate....MTV

I completely just downright loathed it once they had that one show, "undressed"
O.o
I'm thinking, "Kid's are going to think this is the 'cool' thing.....great" (and this was when I was like 14 or 15 lol)

But yeah, there's that "your face or mine" show that's just plain wrong. If my boyfriend (cuz I assume they're couples, right? only saw a piece of an episode) wanted to go on that show I'd drop him in a heartbeat.
Narsassistic bastard...

Then there's that other show "Boiling Point"
.....What the HELL is WRONG with these people?
I'd give back the money and tell them not to do that to anyone again. Jesus crist these guys are jackasses.

I remember one guy said (after he got the money) that it wasn't funny and that the girl had just added to a really bad day (THEN the girl was all sweet and "sorries") T.T

.........I friggn' hate MTV!!!!!!