THE RISE AND STALL OF MTV

MTV is 5 years old this week, which in rock ‘n’ roll terms is forever. For better or for worse, the MTV generation sees rock videos as a picture window on the world--the clips double as songs and sitcoms, horror movies and commercials, comic books and musicals. MTV has left its mark everywhere you look--it’s pop culture at the speed of light.

There’s a huge contingent of rock stars, old and young, who owe much of their success to this carefully sculpted collage of images sprayed on the video screen. Hundreds of TV commercials now have the glossy sheen of mini-videos. Entire TV shows, ranging from pastel pulp like “Miami Vice” to flashy fast-food news shows like “West 57th,” sport huge chunks of visual narrative.

And of course Hollywood has completely fallen under MTV’s spell. It’s hard to find an American film that’s not saturated with music-video-style montage scenes--wait till you see the new Tom Hanks film “Nothing in Common,” which even revs up its rock sound track during a horse-breeding sequence.

MTV’s aesthetic influence is undeniable. But its commercial impact remains a matter of debate.

When MTV was launched in 1981, it offered a freshness and originality that had been missing from the pop mainstream. It was a savvy new sales tool, exposing young bands previously ignored by staid rock radio stations and spiffing up older groups that had fallen out of favor with rock’s younger generation. Just look at how video transformed ZZ Top from a homely trio of hayseed rockers to a sleek gang of outer-space hipsters.

Today, MTV’s marketing prowess has lost much of its edge.

The network’s ratings have been steadily sliding (though MTV execs insist that the network’s average number of viewers has remained stable). Several top rock groups, including Van Halen and Journey, refused to make videos promoting their recent albums, preferring to concentrate on radio air play.

CBS Records Group chief Al Teller announced a major cutback on video production earlier this year, complaining that the “endless repetition” of clips may be “destroying” the mystique of many pop artists. Geffen Records exec John Kalodner recently echoed those sentiments, saying that his label would no longer shoot videos for hard-rock bands until after they’ve received significant radio air play.

Record execs have learned that overexposure isn’t the only downside of the video revolution. A good video can help make a career, but a bad one is equally powerful--a ludicrously overblown video isn’t as easily forgotten as a crummy record. Just ask Billy Squier or Asia, whose careers have yet to recover from their last video embarrassments. Or ask Bob Dylan or Mick Jagger, who looked so haggard and old in recent clips that you could easily imagine kids buying their records--for their grandparents.

It’s no secret why many record execs (often the same ones who several years ago were touting MTV as the wave of the future) now view videos for young bands as a privilege, not a right. MTV has quietly changed its format over the past couple years, shifting its emphasis from breaking new artists to emphasizing hot hit-makers. To use familiar radio parlance, MTV used to be a national album-rock outlet. Now it’s a Top 40 station.

It’s no wonder labels with a host of hard-rock groups are cutting video budgets. Except for hard-rock personalities like David Lee Roth and Ozzy Osbourne, MTV has shied away from playing most heavy-metal bands, preferring to concentrate on more mainstream and more sedate pop talents.

It’s a testimony to how little weight breaking new acts carries with MTV these days that instead of giving heavy air play to offbeat or adventuresome young artists, the channel has relegated their videos to a new “120 Minutes” show that airs at 9 p.m. Sundays, not exactly a pivotal time slot.

The rationale behind this new brand-name pop programming strategy is obvious--and deeply troubling to many record execs. MTV has become, like radio before it, an advertising medium, not a record-selling showcase. And how appropriate, since everything on MTV is a commercial. As yuppies have grown up, advertisers have grown increasingly fond of reaching the key 25-to-34-year-old consumers who buy the most cars, stereos and clothes.

Unfortunately, they don’t buy the most records or, for that matter, go to the most movies. But MTV’s allegiance is clear--it has cut back on videos featuring heavy-metal and abrasive new-wave bands because these are precisely the groups that alienate the channel’s older viewers, the ones who like to hum along to the old Motown music in the Mercury ads.

That’s why MTV’s biggest programming triumph of the year wasn’t the coronation of a new video idol as in past years with Michael Jackson, Madonna and a-ha, but its revival of “The Monkees” TV show, which was a nostalgic hit with pop oldsters and a goofy novelty for the kids.

Unfortunately, with radio today focused even more on oldies programming, the record industry depends more than ever on MTV to help create some excitement for new rock stars. But if you ask kids about MTV, they often complain that the video thrill is gone.

The teen-agers of five years ago, whose prized fantasy was a ringside seat by veejay Martha Quinn’s desk, have gone off to college. The new teen generation isn’t so enamored by the constant repetition of gaudy video images--they’d just as soon hear the hits on Top 40 radio which now offers contest prizes almost as extravagant as MTV’s.

Don’t misunderstand--video still has kids under its sway, but MTV has plenty of competition. Just as MTV replaced video games as a favorite teen pastime, it in turn may have lost part of its audience to the video rental trade, which gives kids the opportunity to keep the TV humming simply by bringing home the latest Rob Lowe movie.

Still, there are plenty of folks bullish on MTV, especially its advertisers. Despite its sag in the ratings, ad revenues for the channel are up, and media experts say MTV is still an attractive buy for advertisers trying to reach its core 12-to-34-year-old audience. You can also expect its influence on TV and film to increase as the stodgier entertainment forms continue to absorb and exploit this new MTV-inspired video vocabulary.

How much impact will MTV have over the next five years? It may hinge on its own reputation as a medium that provides instant celebrity. MTV has created a performance cult where the ability to construct and project a video personality has become far more important than any vision or passion a pop star might actually have. Which is why MTV’s forte is salesmanship, not artistry.

That’s OK with the media buyers. But you have to wonder how much excitement MTV can sustain when its new generation of viewers asks the question: Are our beloved rock idols real performers or just advertisements for themselves?