New topic
PrintableOfftheWall said: sassybritches said: 7.3 ratings would suggest they are still relevant.
 go figure, i thought the show was crap.People watch to see how shit it really is  regardless, they watch. advertisers don't care why people watch, only that they do. the vma premiere is the highest rated telecast on cable year-to-date among their demographic (12-34) and the ratings are up a total of 37% from last year. as far as relevance goes, the only relevance that matters is how relevant you are to advertisers and this is damned relevant! [Edited 9/9/08 6:27am] An individualist is a man who lives for his own sake and by his own mind; he neither sacrifices himself to others nor sacrifices others to himself... | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
Ellie said: shorttrini said: The same can be said for the other music award shows as well. The Grammys, The BET awards, The SoulTrain and the AMA's ratings have all been in the toilet for the past few years. Why, I think the answer lies, in the type of music that is being produced as well as the artist that are making it. That's the reason why, these shows are so low in the ratings. I remember one could not wait to see who was going to perform, now it is more like..."When is the shit going to end. Dick Clark realized this a few years ago, when he moved the AMA's from Jan to Nov., in the hopes of not only having to compete with the other shows, but he figured that it was thankgiving and more people would be home. It did not do any good. Yep. Every year MTV have this list of performers confirmed for the show and they hold back some names to keep secret as if there's going to be some amazing special thing that's going to happen. The name they held back this year until the last day or two was Kanye West. I mean WHAT? Kanye West has performed at pretty much every music awards show in the Western world in the last year, so what the hell is so special about him? They've got nothing of interest. True..... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
PurpleCharm said: OMG...I can not believe the show was actually held in a studio soundstage.
 Well, I've finally got around watching the show (well, I recorded it and watched it while doing other things... like washing the dishes and so on) for the first time since 2002 and while not caring about MTV or the people they call stars these days (and that didn't soley have to do with the fact, that many of the people, who were around, I didn't know)! I actually found the soundstage idea interesting... I mean, just look at Pink's performance... that would have never happened in the usual Awardshow setup. The presenter was funny and Britney looked surprisingly good! Other than that, I agree with some of the comments... the show, eventhough it many times left something to be desired, also in the past, unfortunatly is not the same anymore... were are the real stars? And geez, Tokio Hotel being the "Best new artist" in the US!? What has the world come to??  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
