I watch American Idol very infrequently, but I'm always ripe for reading nasty take-downs of Idol performances. Which gets me thinking: If "snark" is wrong, is it wrong because it's easy, or because it's disrespectful? I think the intelligence that cruelty requires is often underestimated, so my only objection to "snark" could be its disrespect to an artist's effort and intelligence. Luckily, American Idol has never required, nor encouraged, respect for its contestants.
And that brings us to Linda Holmes' article from Thursday:
‘American Idol’ gives too much power to the PeopleLinda observes that the singers loved by People generally have two things in common: youth (which attracts youth, the only ones "blessed with large [enough] quantities of free time" to redial their votes "for the entire time that the phone lines are open"), and a high-pitched loser vibe.
Rabid fans help untalented performers…Unfortunately, more and more, "Idol" is not about the people. It is about the People.
Who are the People? You know them if you've been where rabid "Idol" fans gather. They are the Ruben People. The Kelly People. The Jon Peter Lewis People. And, of course, the People who perfected Peopledom: the Clay Aiken People. They scream. They go to war with opposing factions … They trade low-quality MP3 files of contestants' bootlegged high school choir practices and try to give away sample CDs to unsuspecting strangers on the subway…
Jon Peter Lewis is a perfect example of a guy who really isn't very good, but has People anyway. They're the ones who fell in love with him during his bizarre performance of "A Little Less Conversation," which featured bad singing, apparent loss of motor control, and quite possibly appendicitis.Posted by nchicha at April 10, 2004 08:09 PM
…The problem with People, of course, is that they don't respond to talent so much as to the ability to attract vaguely obsessive personalities. A cynic might argue that "A Little Less Conversation" was no accident — it was a well-planned effort at People recruitment. If it was, it was brilliant, because one of the rules of People is that People love geeks. They love underdogs, they love losers, and they love everyone who is picked on by Simon Cowell. Many mid-level performers struggle in the early rounds, but the real stinkers? The ones it hurts to listen to? They've always got People.
What strikes me about American Idol is that overtly strives for mediocrity, and gets it wrong; and I think it has something to do with this "People" business. The judges claim to be picking future pop-star material - people who can sell records and concert tickets. People who will appeal to the greatest number of customers. And then, those customers go and vote for someone the judges didn't like. It says a lot about their selection abilities, I think.
Take William Hung for example. He didn't make it past the first round, but he's become something of a sensation anyway. Simon Cowell has said that his popularity is "frightening". But, surely, if he's trying to select the most marketable of contestants, the fact that Hung's popularity surprised him shows that he's not as "with it" as he might think.
Aaagh! Don't mind me, it's been a long night.
Posted by: rasputin on April 11, 2004 06:26 AMI think this is true, yes. However I must say that the finalists in American Idol are not very good. The standard is not high. The English version Pop Idol had a much stronger final line up. In fact I doubt if any of the final ten American Idol contestants would have made it into the Pop Idol final.
Posted by: Wendy on April 11, 2004 12:37 PMRe Rasputin's comment, I think the show is probably pretty close to what it intends to be. The judges aren't really searching for mediocrity or cool -- their role is to pantomime that search, to make a watchable case for some (dreadfully disappointing) minimum standard, before being thwarted by the democratizing wisdom of the masses. Maybe the judges are even meant to be caricatures of some kind of intellectual, vainly trying to link the last vestiges of their taste to supposedly objective determinants: votes cast, albums sold, concerts attended. Simon and his accent are supposed to be vicious, funny, and wrong. He may be frightened by William Hung, but that only reinforces the calculus of the show. The satisfaction is meant to be in watching "the people" (and their technology) triumph over the experts.
Posted by: sam on April 13, 2004 11:20 AMI agree with Sam, American Idol seems to have become a battle of People vs. So-Called Experts. The problem with the judges panel, however, is that as overdone as Simon's caustic persona is, he is the only one who really says anything. Randy and Paula might as well be replaced with parrots to mimick Simon's catch phrases. For instance, each redundant use of the word "pitchy" by Randy or Paula makes me twitch with frustration, because Simon said it once and now we have to hear it until our ears bleed.
I digress. As you can see I have more of a problem with the judging panel than with the talent-less contestants. However, it does anger me that the hammy football player only made it to the finals because of the power of middle-american People.
Posted by: mina on April 14, 2004 12:14 PM