Over 4,000 people were in attendance at last night's glitzy MTV bash. Of that number, 3,000 didn't pay in. The poor unfortunate 1,000 popsters shelled out their parents' hard-earned cash for a gold ticket; the remainder of the audience consisted of the music industry's movers, shakers, schmoozers and anyone else who could get their hands on a free ticket. If anything typifies the awards as being the preserve of the music industry - and not of pop music fans - this was it.
There's little doubt that MTV has accomplished a media and indeed pop music revolution since its inception in 1981, when it was launched in the US with The Buggles' Video Killed The Radio Star. Its immediate predecessor was Popclips, a half-hour programme of music videos and comic inserts, and it's no small irony that Michael Nesmith - who was once a member of The Monkees, the first manufactured-specifically-for-television pop group - produced Popclips.
Nesmith, initially the only member of the group who could actually play an instrument, was the son of the woman who invented Tippex, a solvent that enabled the user to make good their mistakes. A bit like magnetic tape, don't you think?
MTV became a huge success due to its astute targeting of its market. But the hype involved in getting the message out to the massed ranks of 14 to 24-year-olds has always threatened to engulf even its own sense of self-importance. The organisation might officially reject the suggestion that the music industry revolves around it, but MTV's influence on pop music charts has virtually forced record companies to produce accompanying videos for almost every new single issued.
Such pressure has resulted in the infamous "loop" syndrome abhorred by emerging artists: no matter how good you considered your music to be, if you didn't have a video the rumours spread that your record company didn't have faith in you. If that was the case, why should radio or press support you?
It's difficult to argue with the fact that the music industry looks upon MTV as a revenue source. As Brian Boyd pointed out recently in this paper, musicians need MTV more than MTV needs musicians - you have only to look at the number of pop stars, with their respective entourages, taking up space in the most expensive hotels in Dublin this week. Britney Spears, Mariah Carey, Whitney Houston, Ricky Martin, Geri Halliwell et al would be most unlikely to pay us a collective visit unless there was something in it for them, or their respective record companies. What they get out of MTV is worldwide television coverage (global domination, no less); which, when you think about it, is marginally more appealing than what's provided by the Hot Press/Heineken Awards.
Yet it's more than mere hype that fuels the Planet Pop ethos of MTV. The argument of many critics is that the organisation is killing real music. It's doing that for sure, and more. MTV has inculcated a business ethic wherein success is dependent on how you look and how soulless your music is. It employs a philosophy that has very little to do with genuine creativity and everything to do with plugging a market gap with as much pap as possible.
When Paul McCartney, arguably the best pop songwriter of the past 35 years, launched his new album on a stage in Cologne recently, he was asked by a member of the audience why his records weren't played on radio or television. His succinct answer was he that was no longer 16 and telegenic.
MTV, of course, would probably reply to such cavils by pointing in the direction of its Unplugged series. Yet irrespective of how critically successful the likes of MTV Unplugged is (it's a Big Brother spin-off which allows the really big names of rock and pop - REM, Bryan Adams, Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, etc - to run through their hits unaided, in theory, by electrification), there is still a strong sense of people who should know better going through the motions.
Ultimately, this is what MTV promotes. Its strict rotation of brain candy programming is enough to send shivers down the spine of any person who values creative thought.
Should we spare a thought for the participants of last night's Pop Circus? The 1,000 or so paying fans who have, literally and figuratively, bought into the MTV hype? The 1,000 media contingent that were sectioned off in a side tent and who had to report the event on television? ) Or the pop music performers, who went through the hoops because it's good PR? I think not.
When David Bowie saw a group called The Human League 20 years ago he said that they were the future of pop music. He might have had a point 20 years ago, but not now. The future of pop music no longer belongs to naive hopefuls with a vision. It's for an ever-growing band of back-slappers with stars in their eyes and dollar signs tattooed on the inside of their eyelids.
When they sleep they don't dream - they invest.
Tony Clayton-Lea is a critic and broadcaster