Underage here, is this true?

underage here, is this true?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=zgVUei2853A
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

But luckily MTV is not only dead, it was dead since well before Miley Cyrus had attained puberty.

Who the fuck watches MTV nowdays?

1. It makes the assumption that pop music represents the entirety of the artform, which is grossly false and outright retarded
2. Image was the primary tool to sell pop music for decades prior to MTV launching

>underage here
Leave this place while you still can. Seriously.

>THEFREETHOUGHTPROJECT.COM

mtv up until the end of the 90s was unironically great

>implying the Beatles' initial rise to success wasn't largely because teenage girls fell in love with them

youtube.com/watch?v=zgVUei2853A

beatles were a boyband

I havent watched tv in over 15 years.

Jay is a good boy don’t bring him into this.

this.

MTV was more of a template for artists to expand their fanbase with more than just their music. Lots of underground artists got played on MTV from the mid-late 80s onward. It launched or saved people's careers, just by having a noteworthy video that stuck in people's minds.

The record industry has always tried to suppress rock whenever it gets too powerful like they did in the late 90s when they were desperate to banish the remnants of grunge and flood the airwaves with Britney/N*Sync garbage.

Anyway, good to see Miley stopped doing edgy shock antics and went back to a sound that was more like her first adult album.

yep the artist was never bigger than the art

never in history until mtv

what a shame

MTV was OK until the 2000's so I'd say yes.

imagine fucking Jay's tight hairless bussy

Hmm yes thats what a business trying to make money often sets out to do, suppress the product making the most money

I don't think this is true, whoever wrote that doesn't actually remember MTVs heyday. Pop music had always been about sexy girls and coordinated boybands ever since Elvis shook his hips at the very latest. It mattered quite a bit what the Beatles, Marc Bolan or David Bowie looked like and it was stupid to claim otherwise. Actually, just for a bit MTV and the music video made it possible for it to about a different kind of visual image. Not everything was a masterpiece but Michael Gondry and Chris Cunningham did some interesting stuff for example.

Believe me, grunge made about 1/5th the money that Britney did.

Yeah. Record labels spent late '91 to about '96 searching for the next Nirvana, signing any "alternative" acts they could, pushing these acts to Top 40 radio and MTV to make good on their investment. But boybands and girl groups and straight pop makes bank a whole lot better. You can score them a Top 40 hit and MTV heavy rotation, but you couldn't market Nine Inch Nails or Filter or The Presidents of The United States of America to the suburban mom demographic or to black people or to rural white Americans.

>thefreethoughtproject

In fact even cockrock like Motley Crue were still preferable in the industry's eyes because they had those nice, radio-friendly power ballads. Grunge was really about as unattractive and unsexy a form of mainstream rock as there ever was. That it happened at all was strange and I don't think the industry would ever let it happen again.

Grunge was fading a bit and Kurt dying basically confirmed it. It was a bit of a weird thing, 'the day the music died'. I don't think is recorded anywhere but there was a very strong sense of it. This was back when music was a wider generational, culture and fashion thing, I don't know if it would make sense to millennials.

Not only pop groups but ultra-cheesy pop punk bands. The late 90s was very strange in that the industry had never tried to target middle schoolers in this way before. Pop music had generally been marketed to older teens or young adults, but the idea of aiming for 11 year olds was new.

>THEFREETHOUGHTPROJECT.COM

>or to black people

Then again, gangsta rap isn't exactly marketable either and that was at its zenith in the 90s. On the other hand, you could always have Usher or R. Kelly, they made nice, radio-friendly R&B ditties.

>This was back when music was a wider generational, culture and fashion thing,


I miss this so much. How do we get it back?

Interesting. This was in the period where the UK market was still capable of diverging from the US one. My recollection is Grunge, basically a wilderness year and then a sort of dual-track thing with a Britpop and quite a lot of club electronica (you see Bjork in this for example). I think most people were of the view American music really, really sucked in this period apart from REM and maybe a few other things.
When I was a kid, I was under the impression that Madness was a kid's band. And this wasn't entirely off-beam, their videos were aimed that way (lots of references to the Beano and stuff) and they played mid-afternoon matinees. I've since spoken to Americans who seem to regard them as a fairly credible ska genre band, seemingly with no idea they played to more children than adults.

u can't, unless you kill the internet.

I've heard the theory that gangsta rap was kind of the black equivalent of grunge, but idk.

>THEFREETHOUGHTPROJECT.COM

THE INTERNET RUINED EVERYTHING. IT'S EVIL

It did and most of the people who wanted "serious" rock at that time went with bands like Radiohead.

>I think most people were of the view American music really, really sucked in this period apart from REM and maybe a few other things.
Nah it was mostly fine outside of pure grunge-y shit.

..cringe thread it is then