We Need a New MTV
After watching the 2002 MTV Video Music Awards last night, I wrote a pretty mean spirited rant about the entire affair - everything from Michael Jackson winning yet another award invented by MTV to Eminem getting booed to Axl Rose appearing as Guns n' Roses minus everybody else in the band. This morning I erased it.
The root of my disdain has little to do with the artists themselves, but with the current media infrastructure of televised music. Put simply, music lovers desperately need a new MTV. Not a rebranded or restyled MTV, but an entirely new cable network truly devoted to music.
MTV is the Microsoft of televised music. Make no mistake about it - MTV is a corporate entity interested only in teenager's wallets and musical taste. They, along with radio networks like Clear Channel and the ass backwards RIAA, are hindering the progress of modern music by endlessly promoting the same artists with disposable music and quick cash turnarounds. We, the public, are held hostage.
When MTV launched MTV 2, I thought we were on the verge of the MTV I remember - and yes, I'm actually old enough to remember the day MTV launched and actually discussing it it with classmates in our little desks - but I was wrong. MTV 2 tries to be the college radio of video networks, but is surprisingly one-dimensional by rotating lots of rap-metal and bands like The Hives, Vines and Strokes. I have nothing against the latter bands (The Hives were the only musical act with a sense of irony and energy at the show), but there is a cornucopia of artists and music out there the channel could explore. But they don't.
Granted, my musical taste runs a very wide gamut thanks to years at public radio, but I know for a fact there are millions of music lovers out there desperately seeking something new, something fresh, something different, than the muffled sound of MTV fellating itself.
Comments
Naturally, I agree with everything you've said about MTV, how could I not? How could anyone over thirteen not?
Notwithstanding Slash (Guitarrist of GN'R, for those unacquainted) was probably one of the best guitarrists of his time, GN'R _is_ Axl Rose.
I could weep for weeks because the original GN'R will never play together again, but Axl Rose _is_ GN'R. Legally and actually.
Posted by: tomas at August 30, 2002 10:25 AM
yea, brother.
I don't know if you get Much (the US version of Muchmusic, the Canadian music channel which slightly predates MTV), but while it too has become more corporate over the years, there is at least a whiff that they don't take themselves too seriously. Back in the 80s they certainly didn't - they mocked themselves and the videos they played with equal glee. It seemed run by fans, not careerist J-school grads using their VJ stint as a stopover to becoming a news anchor (following in the example of CBS' Rather-replacement in waiting John Roberts, formerly Muchmusic's J.D. Roberts...). What's worse about the whole affair is the knowing complicity between the manufacturers of music (who's behind Linkin Park, the Backstreet Boys of nu-metal?) and the broadcasters. What sells sells, so we get endless reiterations and variations on the same theme, same chords, same clothes, same imagery, same difference. Looking at the nominees for Best Whatever at the awards, I could not help but think "Is this the best modern music has to offer?" and "These bands are all the same, and none of them have anything to say." The Jackass stomach-stapling incident, my wife and I decided simultaneously was the definitive marker of the downturn and ruin of Western civilization.
Posted by: AJ Kandy at August 30, 2002 10:26 AM
while i agree with you and i'm well over 13 i do still get entertained by MTV's award shows. And, for me, its all about entertainment anywho...
Posted by: cfont at August 30, 2002 10:37 AM
muchmusic.
Posted by: circles at August 30, 2002 10:42 AM
MuchMusic used to have their own graphics style too, but now they're really starting to look like MTV.
Posted by: Ian Evans at August 30, 2002 11:44 AM
