american idol

[mr3lions]

It ended for me when you said John Lennon was a great singer.

 

True. Lennon didn't like his OWN voice. That's one of the reasons why he would use tons of effects on his recordings.

[pickinatit]

Yes, we clearly do...especially if you think that it's some sort of (1) statement about how great a singer one is or (2) major accomplishment/BFD to 'make it Hollywood' on an overblown popularity (not the same as talent) contest like AI. To me, that's an incredibly LOW bar (and fits right in with all of what AI is about) to judge by in the first place. The bar I hold a GREAT singer to is: have they sung something that resonated, that impacted me/people in general and spoke to us 'beyond just the music', so to speak...can they use the medium of song/voice to communicate wider, deeper, broader than just words words being sung? You can talk pitchy all you want, but nobody on AI has, nor will they likely ever, come close to what John Lennon or Roy Orbison on their worst performance, were capable of getting across emotionally. I'd rather listen to either sing Old MacDonald than anybody who's been on American Idol.

 

 

You helped to make my point regarding Roy Orbison. As low as the AI bar is he wouldn't get over it as a singer. As far as emotion goes, Ann Wilson and Leanna Rimes can bring me to tears....Roy Orbison and John Lennon....not so much as a welling up.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm about as big a Beatles/Lennon fan as one can get but one of the greatest singers ever? It wouldn't even occur to me to put him on any list. I'm with Blue Strat on that one. You lost all credibility as far as knowing what a great singer is when you listed Lennon. No further discussion with you on this post will seem worthwhile after that.

[TrickyBoy]

Reading through this thread, I tend to disagree. I think that AI does a pretty decent job of uncovering really good singers. Conversely, they really don't do that well finding "pop stars" which is what I thought the purpose of the show was, Outside of Carrie Underwood and maybe Daughtry, has anyone been any more than a one hit wonder.

 

I guess the moral is that it takes a lot more than winning a talent show to have a successful music career.

[ChordGirl]

The biggest thing I get from that is "the more things change the more they stay the same". The technology is different, but the idea of the impresario/producer finding the right "voice" to sell his creations is timeless. Berry Gordy perfected that routine during the Motown era.

The technology, to me, makes all the difference. After processing, and assembling 'beats, and sounds,' then choosing studio musicians, it's so far from being about musicianship. The miracles at least were an actual band that played the songs together, for years at a time before major role changes.

I guess, that distancing from human interaction during music is what makes me think musicianship plays such a small role in the music industry, at least when it comes to the solo artist pop scenarios.

[Vito Corleone]

The technology, to me, makes all the difference. After processing, and assembling 'beats, and sounds,' then choosing studio musicians, it's so far from being about musicianship. The miracles at least were an actual band that played the songs together, for years at a time before major role changes.

 

 

Actually they weren't. They were just a singing doo-wop group. No more of an "actual band" then were N-Sync. Now, in their case, they had a major songwriter in Smokey Robinson (who wrote a bunch of stuff for other Motown artists as well), but the songwriting (outside of Robinson), playing, arranging and producing all came from outside the band and from within the Motown machine. The only difference is that Gordy utilized live musicians, because that's all the technology for the time allowed. The "Funk Brothers" were a great band, but if he were doing it today, I have no doubt he'd be using as many synths and computers as this guy does.

[ChordGirl]

Actually they weren't. They were just a singing doo-wop group. No more of an "actual band" then were N-Sync. Now, in their case, they had a major songwriter in Smokey Robinson (who wrote a bunch of stuff for other Motown artists as well), but the songwriting (outside of Robinson), playing, arranging and producing all came from outside the band and from within the Motown machine. The only difference is that Gordy utilized live musicians, because that's all the technology for the time allowed. The "Funk Brothers" were a great band, but if he were doing it today, I have no doubt he'd be using as many synths and computers as this guy does.

So, they didn't tour with a steady band? I've been skooled, again.

[Vito Corleone]

So, they didn't tour with a steady band? I've been skooled, again.

Before they got signed to Motown? No, I think in those days doo-wop groups would play a few-on-a-bill and all share the same band that the promotor provided.

And then even during the Motown years, the acts would all tour together and share a common live band. Which, I'm almost certain, was not the same guys who were in the studio.

And in the studio, the Miracles, and the Supremes and the Temptations and Marvin Gaye and Stevie Wonder and everyone else on the label would just come in after the music had been recorded and sing pretty-much as they were told to. It was a 'factory' for sure. And a lot of those old R&B labels in the 60s and 70s followed pretty much the same model. It was a BIG DEAL when Marvin and Stevie negotiated contracts in the early 70s that gave them artistic control over their recordings.

[kmart]

You helped to make my point regarding Roy Orbison. As low as the AI bar is he wouldn't get over it as a singer. As far as emotion goes, Ann Wilson and Leanna Rimes can bring me to tears....Roy Orbison and John Lennon....not so much as a welling up. Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm about as big a Beatles/Lennon fan as one can get but one of the greatest singers ever? It wouldn't even occur to me to put him on any list. I'm with Blue Strat on that one. You lost all credibility as far as knowing what a great singer is when you listed Lennon. No further discussion with you on this post will seem worthwhile after that.

Trust me, if your definition of what a 'great singer' is excludes Roy Orbison and John Lennon while including the crap that AI shovels out/what's wolfed down mindlessly by the generally ignorant and largely bereft of taste public, your nod towards my 'credibility' or not doesn't matter a whole hell of a lot to me.

You don't personally like their singing? That's one thing.
Claiming they weren't great singers? You're not just disagreeing with anonymous me, but a hell of a lot music professionals, writers and critics, etc. from the past several decades, whose entire job it is to understand what makes a 'great' singer.

Credibility?
What's next? You're going to try and school me on taste too?

[Vito Corleone]

My only real complaint with the AI format is that, in their quest to find both pop stars AND the next great pure "singer", they overlook the type of stylistic singers/performers who really DO go on to be big stars.

Under their format, people like Norah Jones, Pink or Lady Gaga would never be good enough or versatile enough singers to get beyond Hollywood week.

[wades_keys]

 

My only real complaint with the AI format is that, in their quest to find both pop stars AND the next great pure "singer", they overlook the type of stylistic singers/performers who really DO go on to be big stars. Under their format, people like Norah Jones, Pink or Lady Gaga would never be good enough or versatile enough singers to get beyond Hollywood week.

 

Technical purity and correctness vs. "soul".

 

Lennon had enough "soul" to IMO be considered a great singer, despite his lack of technical correctness. But this just points out how hard it is to quantify a "great" singer, so no doubt AI does the "safe" thing by focusing on technical aspects of singing.

[Vito Corleone]

so no doubt AI does the "safe" thing by focusing on technical aspects of singing.

 

 

Well, in all fairness, what else CAN you judge from anything CLOSE to an objective viewpoint? People focus on the "success" of AI by trying to measure how many pop stars they've created but completely overlook the fact that the vast majority of pop stars AREN'T technically great singers. But everytime somebody 'quirky' who can't sing very well starts to do well on the show, the whole country has a fit.

 

All in all, I think it's amazing they've 'discovered' as many successful singers as they HAVE discovered. If you would have asked me 10 years ago when they first went on the air I would have guessed that they would never find ANYBODY that would be successful longer than a couple of weeks after the show ended. But they've found quite a few pretty big (and pretty darn talented to boot) stars that likely would still be selling tires or flipping burgers had it not been for AI. So it's all cool.

 

Seems the worst thing anyone can say about AI is that people like Taylor Hicks and Melinda Doolittle didn't go on to be big stars. So be it. But at least nobody can say that Kelly Clarkson, Carrie Underwood, Jennifer Hudson, Daughtry, or any of their other discoveries CAN'T sing. IMO, there are at least a handful of actually talented singers selling records these days because of AI than we would likely have otherwise.

[wades_keys]

^

I'm right there with you.

 

It is what it is.

 

I'd say it's no different in any competitive musical contests: "King of the Blues", "AI" or even a piano recital.

[kmart]

My only real complaint with the AI format is that, in their quest to find both pop stars AND the next great pure "singer", they overlook the type of stylistic singers/performers who really DO go on to be big stars. Under their format, people like Norah Jones, Pink or Lady Gaga would never be good enough or versatile enough singers to get beyond Hollywood week.

 

I get where you're going with this, but based on what I've seen, I think you're under the impression that AI places far more importance on technical ability than they do IMO.

 

End of day, it ALL has to pass the 'pretty picture' bar, and I guarantee you the lesser singer with great looks will beat out the better singer who's a dog on that show every time, and there's way more thought about how their image can be properly shaped & marketed than how their voice can be improved.

[BlueStrat]

I get where you're going with this, but based on what I've seen, I think you're under the impression that AI places far more importance on technical ability than they do IMO. End of day, it ALL has to pass the 'pretty picture' bar, and I guarantee you the lesser singer with great looks will beat out the better singer who's a dog on that show every time, and there's way more thought about how their image can be properly shaped & marketed than how their voice can be improved.

 

 

Baloney. Have you ever watched the show? The final 12 are selected by popular vote. The public decides who gets voted out every week by who gets the fewest votes. It doesn't get an more democratic than that. Which probably explains why so few winners have gone on to do anything, and why the ones who come in 2nd or third end up doing better. Had actual music producers done the final selecting, they might have a hihger success rate. Looks my be part of why the public votes the way they do, but not always. Unless you think Reuben Studdard or Taylor Hicks was hot.

 

 

[Vito Corleone]

I get where you're going with this, but based on what I've seen, I think you're under the impression that AI places far more importance on technical ability than they do IMO. End of day, it ALL has to pass the 'pretty picture' bar, and I guarantee you the lesser singer with great looks will beat out the better singer who's a dog on that show every time, and there's way more thought about how their image can be properly shaped & marketed than how their voice can be improved.

 

 

Agreed. But even still, there is a higher bar for good singing on that show, even among the prettiest ones, than there is in the general pop world. Every season there's always a couple of girls who make the Top 24 who can barely sing but are sure nice to look at. But even still, I have no doubt every single one of those girls is a better technical singer than Britney Spears.

 

But even their focus on LOOKS (understandable to a certain degree because it IS a TV show, not a radio show, after all) differs from what happens in the general pop world. Singers like Lady Gaga and Pink are successful to a large degree because of their LOOK, to be certain. But not because either one is particularly pretty. Their quirky looks alone would get them voted off Idol relatively early.

 

An interesting twist on Idol this year is that they are bringing in Jimmy Iovine early into the process to help "groom" the finalists. Whether that makes for a better or worse show and/or outcome remains to be seen, but it will be interesting to see how it changes things.

 

One of the reasons for that is the producers are unhappy with the length of time it takes from the time the season ends before the winner is "ready" to release an album. The hope is that with Iovine starting to mold the eventual winner early on, they will ready to record an album much more quickly.

[wades_keys]

One of the greatest, most enduring vocal performances I've ever heard belongs to John Lennon, on "Revolution".

 

Listen to the raw edge, and how his voice just reeks of desperation and weariness.

 

This will NEVER be seen on AI, because John Lennon wasn't just "covering" a vocal, he WAS the vocal.

 

I think AI is doing what it CAN in their context. They're not looking for people with strong material already written and ready to perform. They're looking for singers.

 

But I despise the concept mostly because it feeds into this recording industry that has all but eliminated the BAND from their marketing - it's so much easier no doubt to market a name than an entire band, and so that's what they do.

 

But thinking about it, I have no doubt that either Paul or John in their prime could and probably would easily crush the competition, by sheer virtue of their charisma and then of course the insanely good songwriting. Face it: the American public fell in love with the Beatles, and AI really is a public popularity contest.

 

But it's WEAKSAUCE......

[Vito Corleone]

One of the greatest, most enduring vocal performances I've ever heard belongs to John Lennon, on "Revolution". Listen to the raw edge, and how his voice just reeks of desperation and weariness. This will NEVER be seen on AI, because John Lennon wasn't just "covering" a vocal, he WAS the vocal. I think AI is doing what it CAN in their context. They're not looking for people with strong material already written and ready to perform. They're looking for singers.

 

 

True. What made Lennon's vocal so good on "Revolution" has as much or more to do with the fact that he wrote the song than any great talent he had as a singer. His singing of covers wasn't anything special for the most part.

 

Having said that, the best and most successful singers on AI usually aren't the ones who cover the songs the best, but are best able to put their own 'spin' on a song.

 

 

 

But I despise the concept mostly because it feeds into this recording industry that has all but eliminated the BAND from their marketing - it's so much easier no doubt to market a name than an entire band, and so that's what they do. WEAKSAUCE

 

 

I disagree with that. Singers, outside of bands, have existed long before bands did and existed all through the "band" heyday of the last few decades. I don't think they are 'feeding' into anything. I agree it's probably easier to have a TV show about a singing contest than a band contest (which I think has been tried, IIRC) but I don't think it affects any decline of the band concept that may exist one way or the other.

[Vito Corleone]

But thinking about it, I have no doubt that either Paul or John in their prime could and probably would easily crush the competition, by sheer virtue of their charisma and then of course the insanely good songwriting. Face it: the American public fell in love with the Beatles, and AI really is a public popularity contest.

 

 

Well, they fell in love with the Beatles SONGS first and foremost. The singing? Probably 3rrd or 4th after looks and overall band sound. What would trip John or Paul up would be the same thing that trips up a lot of the best singers on AI--when they force them to sing on some goofy "theme" night that is outside their strength. The rock and roll and country singers get lost on R&B or a "Sinatra" night; the R&B singers fall apart on "Queen" night or country night some such. IIRC, that was the primary reason that singers like Chris Daughtry and Jennifer Hudson went home early.

 

Although, I think I read they were going to do less theme nights this year and more of just letting the singers sing what they sing best. "Best" on that show has too often been defined as "most versatile" which is very often the LAST thing big pop/rock stars are.

[wades_keys]

 

Well, they fell in love with the Beatles SONGS first and foremost. The singing? Probably 3rrd or 4th after looks and overall band sound. What would trip John or Paul up would be the same thing that trips up a lot of the best singers on AI--when they force them to sing on some goofy "theme" night that is outside their strength. The rock and roll and country singers get lost on R&B or a "Sinatra" night; the R&B singers fall apart on "Queen" night or country night some such. IIRC, that was the primary reason that singers like Chris Daughtry and Jennifer Hudson went home early. Although, I think I read they were going to do less theme nights this year and more of just letting the singers sing what they sing best. "Best" on that show has too often been defined as "most versatile" which is very often the LAST thing big pop/rock stars are.

 

That's very true. I overlooked that. The show picks the material. Sometimes they pick stuff that is just a bad fit for the vocalist.

 

They seem to be looking for "well rounded" vs. exceptional in one area. The old jack of all master of none.....Another aspect of the show that I find weak as hell.

[Vito Corleone]

That's very true. I overlooked that. The show picks the material. Sometimes they pick stuff that is just a bad fit for the vocalist.

They pick a theme and provide a list of songs and the singers get to choose off the list. I have no idea how long the list is, but I know it IS limited to songs they can get the rights to. For years they couldn't do any Beatles songs. Then they could and have had "Beatles night" the last couple of seasons. Which must be fun for all the R&B singers fighting over which one gets "Got To Get You Into My Life"

They seem to be looking for "well rounded" vs. exceptional in one area. The old jack of all master of none.....Another aspect of the show that I find weak as hell.

Well, like I said, I believe they are trying to remedy that this year. Also, Chris Daughtry and later David Cook set big examples by showing that the (a) key to success is to be able to take almost ANY song and make it "your own"--rather than try to be an R&B singer, simply take an R&B song and arrange it into a rock song.

Some of the biggest successes have been the singers with enough talent to take a lot of control of the arrangements. Must be fun as hell for those kids to sing with a band that good. And I think it would also be fun as hell to play in that band and have to come up with so much different {censored} every week. I enjoy watching the show,if for no other reason, just for the band and the fact that it is all live. It's gotta be quite an effort to pull off all of that production every week.

And there are some DAMN good players on that stage.

[wades_keys]

 

And there are some DAMN good players on that stage.

 

Oh yeah. Talk about a pick up gig. WOW. I bet everyone of those cats is a heavy reader.

[Vito Corleone]

Oh yeah. Talk about a pick up gig. WOW. I bet everyone of those cats is a heavy reader.

 

 

Oh and then some. When they are going through the audition phase you'll sometimes see them changing keys on the fly to accomodate the singer. Or they'll have a bunch of singers singing the same tune but every one needs a different key and is singing a the song with a different arrangement and style. They gotta know their {censored}.

 

They were doing that a bit last week and it got me wondering if the keyboard player was just transposing the keyboard he was using. Then I realized a cat like him probably specifically DOESN'T use the transpose button because he either thinks it's weaksauce or just wants to keep himself from falling asleep.

 

And as little need as there is for horn players these days, that's gotta be one of the best gigs in town for those guys.

[Steadfastly]

 

 

 

This guy has a great voice. The problem is, I can't stand this kind of singing by a man or a woman.

[tlbonehead]

never watched it. Can't stand that smarmy stuff personally. But wasn't Chris Daughtry on it? He's a pretty decent singer. I have watched Nashville Star occasionally, which at least has hints of reality.

[kmart]

1) Baloney right back at you.
2) Yes, I have watched in limited doses. Not anymore though, as it has zero appeal to me.
3) RE: The final 12 are selected by popular vote/the public selects who gets voted out each week and what's Democratic:
It's public vote AND a number of other factors, including the people who run the show, deciding all of it.
Are you really under the impression that the public, and the public alone, decides all of the above and who wins AI?

If so, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn, some land off the tip of Florida, a couple magic beans and a whole lot more to sell you.
Seriously? You really believe that's all decided by the public only?

Wow.



BTW-
I see what you're trying to do with that picture of Rubben Studdard.
Nice try, massive fail.

Big/husky R&B singer. Yeah, that's a REAL new one, isn't it?

He.
Fit.
The (In his case, "A" suit).
Suit.

Period.