New Beavis & Butt-head To Contain Less Music… Because MTV (MTV?!?) Says It's Too Expensive To License Music
from the check-that-out dept
We’ve talked a few times in the past about how ridiculous music licensing restrictions on TV shows have made formerly fantastic TV shows that included period music, such as WKRP In Cincinnati, The Wonder Years and The State, come out on DVD with generic crappy music replacing the original pieces that often made the shows what they were. In part, that’s because there was no “DVD market” for TV shows when the originals were made, and it’s now effectively impossible and/or ridiculously expensive, to go back and get the necessary licenses. In some cases, that’s because it’s impossible to find the license holders, but mostly it’s because all it takes is a single license holder to demand crazy amounts of money, and the whole project becomes impossible.
Another show that faced the same problem was apparently the original Beavis and Butt-head, when it tried to come out on DVD. And now that the show is returning to MTV years later, apparently the folks behind it are dealing with it by… including significantly fewer music videos, because it’s a total licensing nightmare. And, yes, this is on MTV, the channel that used to be (way back in the day) dedicated to showing music videos and promoting musicians via those videos. But, of course, a few years back, the record labels, in their desperate grab for cash, suddenly started bitching about “how dare MTV promote our music without paying us,” and suddenly promotional videos became expensive… which is part of the reason why it’s difficult to find them on MTV at all any more.
Filed Under: beavis & butt-head, licensing, music
Comments on “New Beavis & Butt-head To Contain Less Music… Because MTV (MTV?!?) Says It's Too Expensive To License Music”
Copyright Killed The Video Star
Subject says it all.
Re: Copyright Killed The Video Star
That is the single best thing I have ever heard said about copyright.
Re: Copyright Killed The Video Star
Who cares i jus wana get high and watch the fuckn cartoon lol
“It’s Too Expensive To License Music”
Maybe they were looking for music in the wrong places? I believe that some up-and-coming/unknown artists wouldn’t mind to license it for more reasonable amounts (or even for free?).
Re: Re:
But MTV isn’t about introducing people to new music! What do you think the M stands for – music? Ha. It stands for Money.
Re: Re:
Yes, there are tons of musicians who will license music to MTV for free. In fact, that’s the standard agreement with MTV. You allow them to use your music in their shows, and they don’t even tell you when they use it. True, they have to pay ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, and the other performance rights organizations to use music, but that’s a deal for songwriters. The recording artists don’t get any money from that arrangement.
Re: Re: Re:
[citation needed]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I posted a copy of the contract that many musicians sign with MTV. MTV gets all non-exclusive rights and doesn’t pay for them. The artists don’t have to sign it, but many do figuring it is in their best interests to have music on MTV.
Re: Re:
Maybe they were looking for music in the wrong places? I believe that some up-and-coming/unknown artists…….
Usually a sensible point – but not if you are talking about a show that contained specific music first time around.
Re: Re: Re:
Is there such a thing as unspecific music?
Re: Re: Re: Is there such a thing as unspecific music?
Listen the next time you?re in an elevator.
What the...?
Why does it seem that the RIAA and MPAA mafia is acting like a defense attorney defending their innocent client all the way to death row?
Re: What the...?
Because there’s the chance of a pardon for a death-row inmate?
Re: Re: What the...?
Well yeah, because they know that the governer will always intervene on their behalf.
Re: Re: Re: What the...?
I almost laughed at this…
Re: Re: Re: What the...?
Well yeah, because they know that the government will always intervene on their behalf.
FTFY
pathetic! he he he he he he he he he he he he he
Music licensing is killing… Music?
MTV2 still shows music videos, they even have Headbanger’s Ball which you’d think a good amount of the B&B videos would be on as well. Also, you’d think there is PLENTY of non-major label music they could use. Beavis & Butthead used weird, old and obscure videos all the time on their show before. Just cut the RIAA out of the equation, shouldn’t be a problem after that.
Re: Re:
Beavis & Butthead used weird, old and obscure videos all the time on their show before.
Exactly. The show turned me on to Army of Lovers and Alien Sex Fiend, two music groups which are pretty far away from the mainstream.
Re: Re: Re:
Alien Sex Fiend is epic. And yes, I agree they can go for more underground stuff and their licensing problems are over, along with some help for those underground groups.
In the end MAFIAA may be doing us good in charging stupidly high prices and driving fans away from them. The otherwise non-mainstream indies are probably thanking them.
Re: Re:
Did you ever watch B&B? Obsecure music only if you don’t know heavy metal bands.
I was real excited for the B&B dvds back in the day, until I realized all the videos were cut.
Re: Re:
Yet another reason where folks who downloaded all the old B&Bs get more content/enjoyment from the show than those who shell out $$$ for it.
Note: From the preview that I saw of the new B&B they will now be making fun of MTV’s other shows (Jersey Shore) instead of music videos.
If MTV adds one music video per episode of Beavis & Butthead it will be the most music that they play all week.
Maybe the whole system will collapse as the defenders of artists who got us in this mess finally start to realize that it’s not good for anyone, themselves included.
Re: Re:
Heh, you’re asking the people that believe artists have more rights through copyright, than anything else, to see the reasoning of less copyright law.
Good luck.
Licensing killed the video star
The first video played by MTV was “Video Killed the Radio Star”. I guess now it would be “Licensing Killed the Video Star”.
I wondered why MTV didn’t show many videos anymore. It was great when they did, but they basically suck now.
Decreased record label sales
The record labels aren’t allowing as many promotional videos to be played and sales are decreasing. Hmmmmm, correlation??
Re: Decreased record label sales
NO DAMMIT IT’S PIRACY THAT’S CAUSING THE DECREASE IN SALES!!!
PIRACY! PIRACY! PIRACY!
Good. Serves the music industry right. But then, I’d be just fine with all of their crap disappearing, to tell the truth. Next up: Local radio stations charge music labels to play (and thus provide ‘valuable professional promotional service’) their music. Ready now, everyone cue up 100% talk radio stations in 3..2..1..
Re: Re:
Radio? Hmmm… oh, wait, I remember that.
"original pieces that often made the shows what they were..."
AND THEN you assert that those valuable contributions shouldn’t be rewarded! That’s pretty much the gist of your notions, Mike: if an existing work can add value to another, then by god, the creators of that work should be GRATEFUL for the promotion even though not rewarded for it!
Yes, I got the part about the licensing nightmare. Even if true, so what? Just part of the biz, some flunky handles it. — WHAT REALLY PREVENTS SUCH USE IS THE SHOW PRODUCERS ARE UNWILLING TO PAY OTHERS FOR VALUE.
(Oh, and “fantastic TV shows … such as … The Wonder Years”? BARF, BARF.)
Re: "original pieces that often made the shows what they were..."
Even if true, so what? Just part of the biz, some flunky handles it
Is that what they call lawyers these days?
WHAT REALLY PREVENTS SUCH USE IS THE SHOW PRODUCERS ARE UNWILLING TO PAY OTHERS FOR VALUE.
I think the real problem is most content creators feel their stuff is so valuable that nothing else would ever be worth anything without their content. Therefore each and every song used in one episode would have to be licensed for probably an exorbitant rate so that the sum of all licensing would out weigh the entire revenue of the show.
So while your statement probably holds some merit, much more of the blame probably lies with the content producers over valuing their content.
Re: BARF BARF
I have a photo of a lake flower I saw yesterday, that is floating kinda funny, half above and half below the water. It is very surrealistic, but very beautiful.
I will sell it to you for $1000. It will enrich your living room wall for sure.
You can order your flunky to handle the payment and other details.
If you don’t think my product is worth $1000 then you are UNWILLING TO PAY OTHERS FOR VALUE.
Because the price does not matter, right? Just that you are WILLING TO PAY OTHERS FOR VALUE. Thats the important part.
So children, remember to be WILLING TO PAY OTHERS FOR VALUE, regardless of how low you think the value is, and regardless of high the asked price is, because otherwise wonder bears will BARF BARF on you.
Re: "original pieces that often made the shows what they were..."
He never said that.
While I do agree with reward, specially for the fact that MTV makes money on their activity, if you read carefully it’s the prohibitive pricing MAFIAA is putting on their content that led to the decrease of music on the show.
What MAFIAA doesn’t seem to realize is that MTV is (or rather was due to the MAFIAA behavior and insane prices) a great tool for promotion. And what MTV doesn’t seem to realize is that there’s a lot of life beyond MAFIAA and that they can probably give some free promotion for indie groups (not necessarily indie labels mind you) paying absolutely nothing in some cases.
So with MAFIAA the channel is in a lose/lose position (although MAFIAA’s myopia says the contrary) and with indies MTV is in a win/win position.
The question is: wtf the guys at MTV are waiting for or are they in some sort of myopia too?
And Troll, shut up 😉
Re: "original pieces that often made the shows what they were..."
“AND THEN you assert that those valuable contributions shouldn’t be rewarded! That’s pretty much the gist of your notions, Mike: if an existing work can add value to another, then by god, the creators of that work should be GRATEFUL for the promotion even though not rewarded for it!”
Well, yeah, but it works both ways, doesn’t it? Why isn’t the music label grateful for the promotional value they’re getting by being on what is almost certain to be a wildly popular reboot of a decidedly popular show? And are those two values to one another so far away from a wash that we even need to mess around with prohibitive licensing requests? Both sides of the coin should be considered.
“Yes, I got the part about the licensing nightmare. Even if true, so what? Just part of the biz, some flunky handles it.”
Yes, it may be part of today’s music business, but the point is that maybe it shouldn’t be. People discuss these things, especially people who might be wondering why a show that used to show vids now isn’t.
“(Oh, and “fantastic TV shows … such as … The Wonder Years”? BARF, BARF.)”
How old are you? And I mean that for real, not as an insult. Because for a certain generation, that show was one of the hallmarks of television as a young person. It certainly was for me. And, I mean, the damn show won both an Emmy AND a Golden Globe. If you want to argue based on opinion, you should probably pick a weaker target….
MTV still has anything to do with music?
Huh. Who knew?
Who watches music videos on TV anymore?
Many bands, from the very small to the very large, put legit music videos on YouTube. There, you can watch the video whenever you want, as many times as you want, without having to pray to some deity that they’ll play the video you want to see whenever you happen to tune in. You can also see related links to mashups or alternate versions or even other videos that YouTube thinks you might like. You can connect with other fans in the comments.
TV = fail
They should keep this up
They should increase licensing costs. Make it so high that no one can afford it. Lock up all your precious music so tight that no one has access to it. I would love to see your [RIAA] crap fall out of the mainstream.
RIAA killed the video star
Actually, the issue of licensing is perhaps a result of the piracy universe we live in.
Mike, I am sure you will remember some of the figures from the UK, which showed that recorded music sales went down, live went up to fill the gap, and the biggest increases in income were in licensing. Basically, it’s one of the rare areas where there is income increases that apply to the recording, and not to live performance.
Further, the value of licensed music has gone way up in the last 20 years. Brands are paying big money to use popular songs in their promotions and advertisements, and many more shows such as CSI and the like are licensing music for their shows. The licensing field is a strong one, and with demand being strong, prices are strong as well.
What MTV doesn’t want to talk about is that they are generating higher ratings than ever before, and as a result the costs for licensing to a larger audience (as well as to be able to syndicate, resell, and market the shows later) costs them more than it did back in the day. It’s the nature of the beast, you want something popular, you pay for it.
On the other side, animation itself got much cheaper to do. In simple terms, the cost of a licensed music went up, the cost of animation went way down, and net it is cheaper to add more original animation than it is to replace it with video (which is what they did original, when animation was more expensive to do).
Of course, you can ignore reality and just slam the companies that license music, sort of Techdirt SOP. Too bad that reality says otherwise.
Re: Re:
Stupid musicians who can’t make any money because of piracy who are making money in spite of piracy.
Re: Re:
In your Neverland reality may say otherwise. But I can see how they could use the promotional power of MTV. I can also see how ppl will be going away from licenses just like the Universities went away from Access Copyright skyrocketing fees in Canada.
Greed made them lose money, that’s what happens with MAFIAA.
Re: Re:
“Mike, I am sure you will remember some of the figures from the UK, which showed that recorded music sales went down, live went up to fill the gap, and the biggest increases in income were in licensing. Basically, it’s one of the rare areas where there is income increases that apply to the recording, and not to live performance.”
Ok, so, music sales went WAY down and live concerts covered the gap (your words). So, live concerts had to go WAY up then. Isn’t that a good thing? The stuff that can’t be mercilessly copied and placed in the ‘net is currently more profitable. Win-win situation here (because artists win win!).
Licensing fees may have gone up too, but I believe that it is a desperation move: faced with lower demand for their stuff, the “gatekeepers” jack up licensing prices to try to dry out those that are still willing to pay. Basic rules of supply and demand say that that’s a bad idea, and is bound to fail.
“On the other side, animation itself got much cheaper to do. In simple terms, the cost of a licensed music went up, the cost of animation went way down, and net it is cheaper to add more original animation than it is to replace it with video (which is what they did original, when animation was more expensive to do).”
What about the cost of making/distributing music? I’d assume it also went way down, thanks to advancements in music related hardware and software, and sites like Jamendo and Youtube.
Re: Re: Re:
You said: “Ok, so, music sales went WAY down and live concerts covered the gap (your words). So, live concerts had to go WAY up then. Isn’t that a good thing? The stuff that can’t be mercilessly copied and placed in the ‘net is currently more profitable. Win-win situation here (because artists win win!).”
Me: It isn’t really a win – it’s a flat (and now declining, based on reports of declining concert sales), not improving. While the artists take in more gross money, they end up paying much of it out and end up with a net number that nobody wants to talk about.
There is no desperation in raising licensing fees, it is really a demand side thing. There more demand there is for top name artists music for TV, movies, and promotional uses, the more the fees go up.
Most people here seem to fail to appreciate that while it might be good promotion for a band to be on B&B on MTV, it is also clear that MTV will profit from it. If MTV was giving the shows away for free (no advertising, no income) they might have a leg to stand on. But they are charging very high ad rates for this stuff, and should share the wealth with the people who make the content people want to see.
Costs aren’t really key here. Demand side economics rule the day.
Re: Re:
tl;dr:
NO DAMMIT IT’S PIRACY THAT’S CAUSING THE INCREASE IN LICENSE FEES!!!
PIRACY! PIRACY! PIRACY!
Re: Re:
Further, the value of licensed music has gone way up in the last 20 years. Brands are paying big money to use popular songs in their promotions and advertisements, and many more shows such as CSI and the like are licensing music for their shows. The licensing field is a strong one, and with demand being strong, prices are strong as well.
There are two issues raised by the story that you have failed to address.
The first is that it is not always an issue of price – often it is an issue of not being able to find the rights holder or one rights holder asking for a ridiculous sum. This could be fixed by a compulsory licensing scheme, as applies for cover versions and live performances.
The second is that even when prices are strong it makes no sense to charge everyone the same rate – the low cost airlines know this and maximise their profits by more imaginative pricing schemes. put Michael O’Leary in charge of the content industry and they would certainly make a lot more.
Re: Re: Re:
Richard, when it comes to popular music (aka, current commercial music), finding the rights holder isn’t any more difficult than a couple of phone calls. The cost of those rights is entirely negotiable, and yes, the artist / rights holder has the right to refuse licensing. Compulsory licensing would run headlong into issues of free speech, where the artist may not want to be affiliated with a product, service, or political stance.
There is no charging of the same price for everyone, it is a seller’s market and they charge what they think the market will bear. You know, free enterprise. There are some general guidelines and such, there are different models that have been created over time to handle almost anything.
If the structures were changed, there may be more deals made, but it isn’t clear at all that there would be more money. Remember, when you cut the price in half, you have to make much more than twice the number of deals just to break even (overhead becomes a larger part of smaller price… so you have need more than double to cover it). A piece of music, example, may not be able to be licensed for two different commercial products, or might be licensed at a signficantly lower price (less than half each) if done so in that manner.
The B&B people learned that animation is cheaper now than music, nothing more.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Richard, when it comes to popular music (aka, current commercial music), finding the rights holder isn’t any more difficult than a couple of phone calls.
Coward. Clearly that is the case for most of it – but remember it only takes one and when you have a programme that used many pieces of music the probability is not negligible.
Compulsory licensing would run headlong into issues of free speech, where the artist may not want to be affiliated with a product, service, or political stance.
Coward, I don’t see how that applies to what I was proposing – which is compulsory licensing for something which has already been made and widely distributed to allow it to be re-released.
it is a seller’s market and they charge what they think the market will bear.
Coward, Obviously they think badly because the market clearly isn’t bearing it.
Plus it is only a sellers market because of an immoral artificial monopoly.
Remember, when you cut the price in half, you have to make much more than twice the number of deals just to break even
Coward, You do realise you just contradicted yourself here, don’t you.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Richard, compulsory licensing is a pain. Imagine that, example, car company A makes a successful commercial using a popular song. Company B wants to move in on the action with their similar styled model, so they use the same song and try to “steal” customers. Because the licensing of the music is manditory, there is no way to stop it legally.
The US is about freedom, and freedom also includes the freedom to say no. Compulsory anything goes against the very nature of the US system, freedom, free enterprise, and the right to charge whatever the market will bear within reasonable limits.
You said: “but remember it only takes one and when you have a programme that used many pieces of music the probability is not negligible.”
Me: Rather than letting one piece of music hold you up, perhaps you should clear them up front, rather than at the end. Then if you find one that is harder to reach than the others, you can just replace it. If you can’t find the rights holder fast enough to suit your needs, you can make a change before you commit to using a piece, rather than after. Learn from the massive mistake made by Nina Paley, and you won’t be forced to repeat her struggles.
Remember, most right holders are NOT hiding, pretty much anything from the modern era is easy enough to track down.
You said: “Remember, when you cut the price in half, you have to make much more than twice the number of deals just to break even
Coward, You do realise you just contradicted yourself here, don’t you.
“
Me: Sorry, don’t get it. If you cut the price in half, you have to make more than twice the number of deals to break even, because admin costs which might have been 10% of the higher price end up as 20% of the lower price. So you have to sell that much more to cover the admit costs of making two seperate deals.
If you take $1000 for a deal with $100 admin costs, you net $900. If you take $500 a deal with $100 admin costs on two deals, you net $800. So you have to make 3 deals to come out ahead ($1500, $300, net $1200), otherwise the single $1000 deal was best.
You said: “Coward, Obviously they think badly because the market clearly isn’t bearing it”
Me: In my opinion, it gets back to the basic Techdirt tenant of scarcity. It’s just like concert tickets. They are “scarce”, so you can keep raising the price as long as you are selling out (or selling enough to make the money you want to make). B&B may take less music, but these days there are many more productions taking music.
In this example, B&B is just like the fan that only has $20, and has no hope of buying a $200 concert ticket. But it’s okay, because the concert tickets are “scarce”, and he will still be a fan even though he had no way to get a ticket.
If you want to debate their ideas, you sort of have to debate the entire universe of scarcity, and disprove some of the basic theories of Techdirt. Are you up for the challenge?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Admin costs are fixed, not variable.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The problem with the whole setup is that it is rarely the artists who hold and control the copyrights to their own music. The cartel that runs the music business requires the copyrights in exchange for allowing access to the common media outlets. They use outbursts about piracy and licensing as a smoke screen, their real fear is that the actual creators of the content will learn they no longer need them. The RIAA, the MPAA and their ilk worldwide are working very hard to gain the same control to access over the internet as they have over access to the rest of the media. That’s why we need to fight for net neutrality and against things like the ACTA treaty.
Re: Re:
I haven’t heard anyone (now or ever) slam companies for licensing music. Mike’s point was that the licensing costs are so high that it makes no economic sense for shows like B&B to license the music.
This does not mean licensing is bad, it means the licensing is overpriced for that use. In other words, Mike is pointing out that the license fees are so high as to be counterproductive if the labels are interested in getting their music used for this purpose.
Perhaps that’s too fine of a distinction to fit into your erroneous “Techdirt hates it when people make money” belief system.
Honestly, it amazes me — all of the posts I see here are clearly and unambiguously aimed at helping IP creators maximize their revenue in the world as it actually exists, but I still consistently see comments asserting the exact opposite.
Astounding.
Re: Re:
Too bad that reality says otherwise.
Right, just like the industry said CD prices would go down.
Just because it’s considered “promotion” for a song to play on a major TV outlet, doesn’t mean that MTV should not have to pay to play the song. They still should get permission from the artist.
Re: Re:
They still should get permission from the artist.
No – firstly the artist actually very rarely holds the rights – and secondly this idea that you somehow have a moral right to control how your work is used is just phoney. Most creators never have that right and don’t mind (cf compulsory licensing for cover versions). It is only raised by control freaks and those who have run out of practical arguments.
Licensing like Dire Straits said MONEY FOR NOTHING. wonder how much the artist gets from licensing probably the same as usual $0.00.
This will make every episode of Beavis and Butthead about 2 minutes long.
… and less viewers as well.
Country Music?
Is there a reason that we don’t hear any stories about licensing/copyright QQ from Country artists?
I take it they are not part of the RIAA? What is country music’s equiv of RIAA? Why is that organization not up in arms about ‘think of the artists’?
How are the country stars actually making money if they are so loose about their copyrights? How can this old school business model still make money!?
Re: Country Music?
“””Is there a reason that we don’t hear any stories about licensing/copyright QQ from Country artists?”””
Yes, there is a reason you don’t hear those kinds of stories: Nobody wants to license county music.
Re: Re: Country Music?
It’s not “license,” it’s “listen.”
Licensing and IP is out of control this is just one more example of it.
Let the record companies die there much needed death.
I am glad more artists are starting to go independent id rather my hard earned money go right to the artists then some middle man record exec. maybe Mike Judge should reach out to independent artists.
and THE RIAA and MPAA are nothing but a entertainment mafia scheme designed to extort money from people stupid enough and willing to pay it.
Finding license holders is so mainstream
Just use the music without license… they’ll find you.
So...
what I see happening is that between the debacale that will be B&B talking about music videos plus the fact that B&B are immaturishly outdated (because really while they had their moments the original B&B crowd has long grown up and I just don’t see these guys standing the test of time like Mickey Mouse or Bugs Bunny) this new B&B show will go down in flames rather quickly.
Along with the music videos part of what got attention for the original show was that they were so “edgy” for their time with their language and the stupid stuff they did. Teens have been getting bombarded with that kind of stuff (and worse) for so long that they won’t have the same appeal anymore.
The Greatest American Hero is another show that got the “licensing” treatment. Luckily, before I bought the DVDs when they came out, I bought a set of the series from someone who video-taped the original. I may have to transfer those tapes to digital at some point.
Re: Re:
These days the shows just ask for all future rights in whatever medium. That means they have the right to use the music and reproduce the show in media no one has yet thought about. In the past they didn’t think to ask for a comprehensive license so they had to back and renegotiate for new uses of the show.
They are smarter now about licensing music. If the rights holders don’t agree, they just don’t use the music. And there is so much music available, an uncooperative rights holder is no longer an obstacle. They just find someone else. It’s buyers’ market now for music licensing. People will give it away for the exposure.
For what it’s worht there is a simple solution. Using round numbers MTV can pay the labels $1000 per video per episode. This revinue would follow the usual split of $900 for the label $100 accruing to the artists. In return the labels will pay MTV $1100 in promotional fee which according to industry accounting practices will be charged to the artists. Net effect MTV gets $100, Artist gets $-1000 towards recouping their advance and the label execs spend $900 on blow and hookers.
Yay, I hope the industry price itself out of the market LoL
Here's a standard music license with MTV Networks
Many musicians have signed this with MTV. The musicians don’t get any money from MTV (or in this case, they get a $1), and give MTV permission to use the music however this wish, now and in the future.
https://www.indie-music.com/downloads/MTV_MasterSyncBlanketUsageAgreement.pdf
Re: Here's a standard music license with MTV Networks
Here are two more contracts. Pretty much the same thing for each of them.
http://www.3858backup.com/…/MTV%20LICENSING.doc
http://www.entertainmentlawchicago.com/music/BUNIM-MURRAY%20Synchronization%20License.pdf
Freaks & Geeks
Freaks & Geeks was another TV series that took ages to get released on DVD for this exact reason. There was actually a group of people who were contacting the companies trying to get them to release it for years, as well as maintaining a big petition to show how many people supported the DVDs. I think in the end the guy who was responsible for starting the petition and this sort of ‘online movement’ of people requesting it to be released actually had to help do some kind of work on the DVD release. I think it was called Shout Factory.
So how much did MTV pay in the 80s for airing videos 24/7? Or did they not pay but the industry used payola like on the radio to get their stuff out there?
So ...
… what do you young folks think about this Music Television?
Re: So ...
Television…television…that’s that box thing our Grandparents used to stare at which told them what to buy, right?
Re: folk
young folk think that Music television is not benefited for them because folk has been outdated.
Its cool b&b will be poking fun at mtvs lame shows they have,should be funny still.(i hope)