03/08 EDITORIAL: "AMERICAN IDOL" MEETS THE NEW REALITY

[John Bartus]

I think you'd be surprised. Karaoke is popular in all the local watering holes. And the people who participate are way outnumbered by the people who go to watch. It's like a form of comedy watching these people make fools of themselves. Which I always thought was he main draw of AI. Without Simon's scathing criticisms and the horrible audition outtakes, would AI have been successful? I think this show (and karaoke) is popular because of people who like to watch, not because of some desire to participate.

 

You mean, kinda sorta like NASCAR fans who don't much care about great driving, but are there to see the crashes?

 

[juri]

You mean, kinda sorta like NASCAR fans who don't much care about great driving, but are there to see the crashes?

 

How is this not funny....

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zcc8dTqflh8

[Beck]

I

[juri]

I

[nice keetee]

All of the above astute observations .I've never watched an entire episode/session of American Idol. If it gives viewers an escape/entertainment and sells soap, then so be it. If it leads one watcher to a link for music they would never have gotten... it keeps music alive. :blah

[BlueStrat]

I don't know. I don't think you can discount the success of Chris Daughtery (fastest selling debut album in Soundscan history) or Jennifer Hudson (Grammy, Golden Globe, Oscar), or Carrie Underwood (CMA Awards, grammy). All reasonably taleneted people who probably wouldn't have had much of a chance without AI.

It is what it is-a talent show, and not much else. It isn't the be all and end all, and certainly not a model for widespread success. It's just one more avenue for some people to get success in the business who otherwise likely wouldn't, and anyone who gets success in the music business gets a big thumbs up from me.

 

As was said before, I think the days of the Madonna-Elton John-Clapton-Prince style rock idol are pretty much over. It's increasingly a matter of finding success in a genre, and being able to be a 'star' without most of the world knowing who the hell you are.

[veracohr]

I think that would be not only a really entertaining show, but educational both for audiences and anybody considering becoming a musician who thinks that you get signed and then hit records just fly out of your ass.

 

:lol:

 

HA HA HA HA HA!!! Wonderful imagery!

[Hulston Prickle]

 

But what inspired me to write this editorial is that so far, I haven't seen any threads started about American Idol, and I wondered why.

 

 

Have you ever been to Guitar Jam?

:poke:

[MichaelSaulnier]

American Idol isn't just Fox's biggest hit... it's the top show, in terms of ratings, in the US.

 

The decline in viewership, imo, isn't as much related to a lack of interest... 33 million viewers is still a HUGE audience... it's more of an issue with TV programming as a whole.

 

There are so many more people with CHOICES these days. Not just the dozens of channels on TV, cable, or satellite... but DVD's, DVR's, and more.

 

None of the TV shows on network television are gaining ratings, ALL are falling in comparison to the past.

 

The irony is that the "golden age" of TV had more potential for "breaking" an "idol" group or performer than today's TV.

 

How many people viewed the Beatles debut on the "Ed Sullivan" show.

 

70 million.

 

Blows away AI.

 

And everything else.

 

You can't BUY that kind of viewership these days...

 

No matter what kind of junk you program.

 

M

[rasputin1963]

A great discussion, Craig.

 

I have to say that, growing up in the 60's, 70's and even early 80's, I never dreamed we'd be at the place we are now in pop music.

 

I didn't see all this comin' back then.... did you?

 

I'm in a funny situation: I love playing around with digital audio, and applying all the tricks, subtle and wacky, that VST's can perform. But that's the very reason I dislike so much pop music on TV and on the radio: I'm so keenly aware of the trickery involved. Hard to believe that there was ever a time when 3-minute records were recorded in one room, with all the musicians present, and everyone knew his/her part, and everybody had to get it right.

 

Old paradigms die hard, and this latter scenario is still my model for what musical integrity is. The idea that modern pop can just be a farrago of digital samples, corrected and tweaked, by a wide assortment of recordists and artistes, is still a strange thing for me to grasp. it seems like.... I dunno...... cheating. (And that's obviously why Timberlake is who and where he is and I am who and where I am, ha-ha.)

[King_For_A_Day]

...paradigms die hard, and this latter scenario is still my model for what musical integrity is. The idea that modern pop can just be a farrago of digital samples, corrected and tweaked, by a wide assortment of recordists and artistes...

 

paradigms?

farrago?

artistes?

 

It's obvious that you don't watch AI, raspy!

I had to look up "farrago".......

 

Wait, am I saying that AI watchers don't have extensive vocabularies?

Well.............

Yes.

 

Great discussion, everyone!

[rasputin1963]

LOL. Not just an afffectation: The British world (UK--Australia--NZ--South Africa--Kenya--Canada, etc.) has long used the spelling "artistes" to refer to musical performers... to distinguish from "artists" who are painters/sculptors, etc. Somewhere along my travels, I picked up that spelling, and, if the shoe fits....?

 

 

paradigms? farrago? artistes? It's obvious that you don't watch AI, raspy! I had to look up "farrago"....... Wait, am I saying that AI watchers don't have extensive vocabularies? Well............. Yes. Great discussion, everyone!

[Duddits]

That's because nobody of that calibre would ever agree to appear on a show like AI, and more than likely wouldn't have even as kids. Therein lies its total irrelevance.

(American Bandstand...)

[Lee Flier]

I don't see any similarity to American Bandstand at all. The performers on that show were just lip synching to their hits - the purpose of the show wasn't to "judge their talent" or tell them how to run their careers. Sure, Dick Clark sometimes had a drunken go at performers he didn't like, but most of said performers were already popular and the teenagers didn't give a crap what he said; it's not like he had unknown performers on there that were being offered a record deal based on winning a "contest".

[Duddits]

It will be interesting to see if, whether in the years ahead, American Idol will be able to adapt and change to the new model of "stardom." Whether it will pick, say, the artists who made the Top 24 videos over the past year in terms of aggregate internet hits rather than holding physical auditions all over the US. Would you rather watch the guy who did "Shoes" on American Idol, or someone who could have a comfortable career playing the local Holiday Inn every Friday night? We'll find out.

As long as the show itself remains the real star, they'd vacuum up contestants from strip bars if it kept them in business. Oh wait, they already do that!

 

By the way, anyone else notice that Randy says "pitchy" to mean anything but actual pitch?

[Duddits]

I don't see any similarity to American Bandstand at all. The performers on that show were just lip synching to their hits - the purpose of the show wasn't to "judge their talent" or tell them how to run their careers. Sure, Dick Clark sometimes had a drunken go at performers he didn't like, but most of said performers were already popular and the teenagers didn't give a crap what he said, it's not like he had unknown performers on there that were being offered a record deal based on winning a "contest".

 

The similarity is that it was the televised platform for young musicians to present themselves to a national audience in their day, and they did it.

 

Even Star Search has its legacy - Usher, Alanis Morissette, even Brittany Spears - feel free to use that last one to make your point.

 

My point is that it's easy to say the great musicians we all revere would never stoop so low as to whore themselves out to as commercialized a platform as American Idol. But in reality, all of those musicians took advantage of the televised opportunities available to them in order to advance their careers. Of course, because of how AI is constructed, strong artists don't do as well on it. But just because AI isn't constructed to nurture the most interesting artists among us doesn't mean the most interesting artists among us wouldn't want a piece of AI.

 

I'm not so sure a young Paul McCartney wouldn't audition for AI, although I doubt he'd get past 80s week, Randy's "I don't know dawg, it was kinda pitchy," or hyper-telegenic competitors like Syesha Mercado who is so stunningly beautiful no one seems to notice she can't sing.

[Lee Flier]

The similarity is that it was the televised platform for young musicians to present themselves to a national audience in their day, and they did it.

 

But the "young musicians" on AB were already signed to a label and had already demonstrated that they were viable. AB wasn't making any claims that it knew how to spot talent or that they would be any kind of star-making machine beyond traditional promotion of one's record.

 

Even Star Search has its legacy - Usher, Alanis Morissette, even Brittany Spears - feel free to use that last one to make your point.

 

I will, thank you.

 

My point is that it's easy to say the great musicians we all revere would never stoop so low as to whore themselves out to as commercialized a platform as American Idol.

 

Yes, and you'd have a point if that's what I'd actually said. I didn't say that musicians we revere wouldn't "whore themselves out to a commercialized platform" - obviously lots of them have and would again. The "commercialized" part isn't the issue, it's the particular nature of AI (and I'll add Star Search to that list) - the idea that someone is specifically getting on the show to be "judged" by people who are looking at criteria that likely have nothing to do with what makes said revered artists compelling.

 

I'm not so sure a young Paul McCartney wouldn't audition for AI, although I doubt he'd get past 80s week, Randy's "I don't know dawg, it was kinda pitchy," or hyper-telegenic competitors like Syesha Mercado who is so stunningly beautiful no one seems to notice she can't sing.

 

Exactly, and he would know that if he'd seen the show, ergo he probably wouldn't bother to audition. That was my point. It's like throwing pearls before swine.

 

And actually, now that I think about this, it brings back a dim memory from when I was about 14 years old. An apparently well meaning friend of my family suggested that I audition for the Gong Show. Now, I'd never actually seen the show, but I figured it couldn't hurt to get in front of a national TV audience and at my age, I could appreciate the experience of the audition and/or a TV appearance if it came to that.

 

So I auditioned. I was nervous in front of the camera, and I guess the experience was helpful in that it was a TV audition under my belt. The people from the show got back to me a few days later and, to their credit, they were very honest. "Well, we can't use you on the show. The trouble is, you're nowhere near bad enough to get gonged, and you're nowhere near ridiculous enough to go over well with our audience."

 

I thanked them for the response, and the next time the show was on, I watched it. Then I saw exactly what they meant. I'm sure that had I seen the show before the suggestion was made, I wouldn't have bothered with the audition. And obviously I wasn't at all disappointed that I didn't "make the cut." In fact if I had, I'm sure I'd have declined actually appearing on the show.

[Lee Flier]

 

I think you make some great points, but this is where we part. I think this is the face of AI, the outward claim of the show, but not what it's actually about. AI is TV... it's about putting together a popular TV show (which it still is), not finding talent and creating stars. The careers that get launched in its wake are a side effect of its main purpose - to be a successful TV show. They sustain a public confidence that keeps it going, but any stardom is as incidental as would be a contestant on "America's Next Top Model" becoming America's next top model.

 

 

Actually I think that was exactly Craig's point - he thinks they have lost that public confidence that the show is or can be what it claims to be. You and I may know it's never been about what it claims to be, but a good many of its viewers likely didn't know that and perhaps now are realizing it.

[MrKnobs]

I Just like Survivor or any of those other lame shows, eventually people tire of the same concept and it becomes played out.

 

Don't compare American Idol to Survivor, Missy!

 

Survivor is currently in its 16th season, still going strong. Last season's ratings were the best ever, and this season is looking good too. That's because Survivor isn't a plastic show about looks and fake talent, it's about human nature in competition under extreme stress, when things get real.

 

And well, the beautiful scenery, the bare boobs, and the hunky guys probably don't hurt either.

 

Sure, all TV shows eventually burn out and get canceled, and Survivor will be no different.

 

Mostly, though, your comparison is apples and oranges. I *do* think it's an apt comparison in that many Survivor veterans have gone on to be top national celebrities in the form of models, movie stars, motivational speakers, tv actors, and heads of foundations.

 

Anyway, none of that is what makes American Idol suck. What makes American idol suck is that it excludes 90% of the SOUL from music, by forcing the contestants to sing COVER SONGS. So, it's an exercise in vocal gymnastics for people who may or may not BE shallow but are forced to present themselves that way.

 

As we all know, a long career in music isn't dictated strictly by how amazingly someone sings. For every Whitney Houston or Celine Dion there are dozens or even hundreds of singers proving that connecting with the audience is more about expression of the soul than athleticism of the vocal chords, about the SONG and how compellingly the singer delivers it, how believable he or she is to the audience.

 

THAT'S what makes for a long career in the music business. And don't kid yourself, YouTube hasn't changed that fundamental equation, it's just allowed everyone to participate in showing that they can do that. Longevity in a music artist requires having something meaningful to say, and being able to change and grow with each album. American Idol changes that in no way, nor does YouTube.

 

Terry D.

[Lee Flier]

Survivor is currently in its 16th season, still going strong.

 

Huh? Now I may not keep up much with TV shows in general, but I know that show isn't older than this decade.

 

Last season's ratings were the best ever, and this season is looking good too. That's because Survivor isn't a plastic show about looks and fake talent, it's about human nature in competition under extreme stress, when things get real.

 

Well AI is about that too, really (how people act under stress). Doesn't make it - OR Survivor - any more "real" IMO. Both shows reward people who play a certain "game" and act in ways that aren't likely to apply to any real life situation, thus the comparison.

 

Anyway, none of that is what makes American Idol suck. What makes American idol suck is that it excludes 90% of the SOUL from music, by forcing the contestants to sing COVER SONGS. So, it's an exercise in vocal gymnastics for people who may or may not BE shallow but are forced to present themselves that way.

 

I agree, that is one of several things that make AI suck, though by no means the only thing. Really, in fact, if that was the only thing that sucked it wouldn't suck so bad. Lots of greats have gotten their start doing covers and making them their own. Going back to Duddits' analogy of a young Paul McCartney, he obviously could and did wipe the floor with a Little Richard or Eddie Cochran cover... the Stones had several hits that were covers before they became successful with their own stuff and it didn't make them any less the Stones... etc.

[MrKnobs]

Huh? Now I may not keep up much with TV shows in general, but I know that show isn't older than this decade.

 

Survivor 1 debuted in the summer of 2000. Unlike conventional TV, Survivor often has two seasons per year. This year, due to the writer's strike, Survivor production got accelerated to cover the gap in the scripted shows. Reality TV = no scripts, baby!

 

http://www.cbs.com/primetime/survivor16/

 

Well AI is about that too, really (how people act under stress). Doesn't make it - OR Survivor - any more "real" IMO. Both shows reward people who play a certain "game" and act in ways that aren't likely to apply to any real life situation, thus the comparison.

 

I can see that performing "live" in front of a national audience would be stressful, but if AI would first starve the performers for weeks, deny them potable water for a few days, make them try to sleep under leaky thatched shelters in the cold driving rain, then make them run and swim for miles and wrestle with each other, all the while scheming to take each other out, THEN THAT might be reasonably called STRESS and IMHO would make AI a lot more interesting to watch.

 

Mark Burnett, the series producer, was a British Commando and he clearly understands how to stress people.

 

Wasn't our Phil one of these guys too?

 

I agree, that is one of several things that make AI suck, though by no means the only thing. Really, in fact, if that was the only thing that sucked it wouldn't suck so bad. Lots of greats have gotten their start doing covers and making them their own. Going back to Duddits' analogy of a young Paul McCartney, he obviously could and did wipe the floor with a Little Richard or Eddie Cochran cover... the Stones had several hits that were covers before they became successful with their own stuff and it didn't make them any less the Stones... etc.

 

I guess on second thought I kind a agree with you there. Remember that Rock Star reality show with Tommy Lee and Dave Navarro hosting? Rockstar Supernova.

 

Now THAT puts AI's collective d*ck in the dirt, IMHO. You know why? Because it ROCKS! It freakin' ROCKS! Live band, energy. For example:

 

B5rL2spNJjc

 

FcP_KPXlLQc

 

And for a softer side,

 

3FoBN_s1uYU

 

EDIT: One more

 

[YOUTUBE]sJ-X5ODknGU[/YOUTUBE]

 

Now THAT'S a rock star. Not your mom's idea of a rock star, like AI.

 

Terry D.

[Duddits]

And actually, now that I think about this, it brings back a dim memory from when I was about 14 years old. An apparently well meaning friend of my family suggested that I audition for the Gong Show. Now, I'd never actually seen the show, but I figured it couldn't hurt to get in front of a national TV audience and at my age, I could appreciate the experience of the audition and/or a TV appearance if it came to that. So I auditioned. I was nervous in front of the camera, and I guess the experience was helpful in that it was a TV audition under my belt. The people from the show got back to me a few days later and, to their credit, they were very honest. "Well, we can't use you on the show. The trouble is, you're nowhere near bad enough to get gonged, and you're nowhere near ridiculous enough to go over well with our audience." I thanked them for the response, and the next time the show was on, I watched it. Then I saw exactly what they meant. I'm sure that had I seen the show before the suggestion was made, I wouldn't have bothered with the audition. And obviously I wasn't at all disappointed that I didn't "make the cut." In fact if I had, I'm sure I'd have declined actually appearing on the show.

 

Wow! That's a great story on many levels, although after seeing the show, I'm surprised you didn't want to be on it EVEN MORE, adding pizza-juggling and a clown costume to your musical performance just to ensure a spot!!! As a singing cat, no doubt I would've gotten the same response, and then done everything I could to appear sufficiently ridiculous to have a shot at that $516.32 jackpot!

[Duddits]

 

Actually I think that was exactly Craig's point - he thinks they have lost that public confidence that the show is or can be what it claims to be. You and I may know it's never been about what it claims to be, but a good many of its viewers likely didn't know that and perhaps now are realizing it.

 

 

I just see the relationship between the TV show and its fig leaf record label as the opposite. Craig says "I haven't seen any threads started about American Idol, and I wondered why. Then it hit me: American Idol is all about a record company going out, finding talent, signing it, and creating a star."

 

IMHO, record sales are a fringe benefit of the show, like Bart Simpson t shirts are for "The Simpsons." Pure merch. And I somehow think viewers always thought so as well, whether rooting for William Hung, Ruben Studard, Sanjaya, or other supernovas in the AI universe that they didn't actually like. First and foremost, the show is great T.V., snarky innuendo between Simon and Ryan, Paula stumbling through a hangover, the guilty pleasure of watching others massively humiliated - first the loosers, then the popular kids.

 

The lack of interest on sites like this probably has more to do with no real compelling musical talent to get people like us excited. Actually, I kind of liked Chickeezee, I get the precocious talent of David Archulleta, the Sound of Music Mothering of Brooke White over her wards, 24 going on 60 Carly Smithson, and... who else is there? Amanda Overmyer: two colors of hair, one color of sound, too un-smiley to survive the Velveeta voting machine? David Cook who is vying for the part of Mini-me to Daughtry's Dr. Evil?

 

Last year, I think Melinda Doolitle got sites like this riled up because she had a phenomenal voice. Too bad she lacked a personality. But musicians were hopping up and down after her every masterful performance, and debated Jordan vs. Melinda like Mac vs. PC. But who is there now for us to get excited about? No wonder you speculate it's beneath the musicians you revere. AI is just not that interesting musically. But until 24 returns to the air, what other violent but good shows are out there to watch?

[Lee Flier]

Isn't spotting and presenting the talent the premise of all those shows, whether judgment happens behind closed doors (AB) or in front of the cameras (AI)?

 

Well, sort of, but again most of the "talent spotting" had already happened by the time somebody got to be on AB.

 

I guess my point is that despite differences, big differences!, AI is the televised showcase for this generation as AB was for the last. Why would you assume that a popular musician who availed himself of publicity opportunities in the past would find publicity opportunities in the present too ghastly to exploit?

 

Because there are plenty of other publicity opportunities in the present that aren't so ghastly - Saturday Night Live, Letterman, Conan, Leno, even MTV/VH1 have some spots for up and coming talent, as do public TV, CMT, BET, E channel, etc. Those are more like the Ed Sullivan or American Bandstand of our time. AI is a different beast, so far as I'm concerned.

 

You may be right but there's no way to know for sure. I think for many performers, the fact that AI is a judgment show is less important than its publicity value. The "mentors" certainly flock to AI for the publicity, and I think the contestants realize that the publicity is more important than winning. It's certainly worked out that way. Take Daughtry, for example, who looked like he hated every minute of it, but used his exposure to launch a career while the winner wilted into obscurity.

 

Yeah, I suppose that might work out for some people, but others might feel that bad publicity, or seeing yourself presented in an unfavorable light for your TV debut, would be more damaging to your career than staying in relative obscurity until the right opportunity comes along. I don't necessary agree that any publicity is good publicity, having seen too many people when I lived in L.A. who made a bad first impression and then could never get anywhere after that.

 

Wow! That's a great story on many levels, although after seeing the show, I'm surprised you didn't want to be on it EVEN MORE, adding pizza-juggling and a clown costume to your musical performance just to ensure a spot!!! As a singing cat, no doubt I would've gotten the same response, and then done everything I could to appear sufficiently ridiculous to have a shot at that $516.32 jackpot!

 

LOL ... yeah, that was exactly the kind of thing I didn't want to do, although it certainly seemed I had an open invitation to do it. I also had numerous opportunities to, for example, join cutesy little girl-bands that were sure to be famous (and some were), and again one could argue that the "publicity" was worth doing it. But again, I didn't think it was. I'm very glad I never went on tour and made records with a bunch of people I didn't care about, who were thrown together by some lecherous producer, and played music I didn't care about, and ended up forever typecast as that chick who was in that lame girl band for 15 minutes. That isn't why I do this, and never has been.

 

But then, I'm a little odd.

[Anderton]

Weird to see discussions that are 10X deeper than the show being discussed!