I cannot believe that you feel these "poor people" are being exploited. They are either over 18 or under 18 with parental approval and if they cant take criticism then what the heck are they doing dreaming of performing for the public? They should get a job washing cars or dishes where no one is so critical of your every move. AMERICA....get over yourselves and stop asking for life to be handed to you on a silver platter. Be prepared to pay your dues in this life or get another dream. IF all else fails stay with mommy......

JD, In this case the exploitation comes in primarily in the editing choices and the tone in dealing with the mortally untalented and the insane. I have no problem with a talent competition for singers, but I do have a problem with the entire world laughing at, not with, some of the least talented and most deluded who participate.

In Canada, there has been a reworking of a UK show called Popstars, I've not seen AI, however, I know a number of the people who were involved in the CDN production of Popstars, and I know they aren't evil, but their actions became evil. The shows exist to exploit needs, wants and desires, all unrealistic.

It isn't about producing a reasonable product (a pop tune you want to hear) but about exploiting the dream of being a celebrity (being known for being known).

Sorry, Eric, but I seem to be missing something. If these guys aren't "artists," then neither were the first batch. This is simply a rehash of the first time around, once more from the top.

If you want to just admit that you're enjoying the show, go ahead. We won't think any less of you, really. But to say that this seasons is somehow different from the last is disingenuous at best. Perhaps you just started watching this season earlier, before you developed a rosy-glasses view of the ever-dwindling pool of contestants looking for publicity?

A few things: I didn't watch the show last season until the very end. I am not particularly "enjoying it now" - I tried to watch the second night last night and got completely sick of the emphasis on terrible talent and the exchange of insults. Maybe it'll will get better when the better talent emerges.

I have made no comparison between this version and the last, which I am certain was virtually identical; although I had a very different reaction to last night's show than Tuesday's. Last night was unwatchable, Tuesday's had its moments.

I'm not sure where the rosy glasses come in, but my focus last season was purely on the "artist contract," which was, and I assume, still is, egregious. However, watching the Where They Are Now segment Tuesday night regarding last season's finalists, I realized how far any of them are from being "artists" - they are just entertainers (not that there is anything wrong with this) and my concerns regarding the contract don't apply nearly as much to entertainers, who are dependent upon others for their material, direction, etc., with different ultimate goals than "artists." Artists seek self-expression, entertainers seek to entertain, and the content of their material, their musical direction, etc is much less important to them than to an artist.

Exploited?! These people knew what they were getting into. Who could watch last years American Idol and not know? Heck, probably half the people knew they couldn't sing and got on just to make the "worst" list and to be insulted by Simon. Sure some people really think they can sing (the guy in the yellow suit) and its difficult to see their dream crushed, but then the guy who couldn't take "no" because he had a dream...come on! He was playing a part in his own little play. He knew he wasn't going to get on with that overly dramatic screeching (i can't call that singing).

The best part is, at the end you have several people who will fulfill their dream (Tamyra, Kelly, Justing) who may have never been able to do so otherwise!!

Curtis, I basically agree with you regarding the "normal" performers - the exploitation comes in how the show is presented, the editing, the tone, making fun of the untalented and the delusional. (Relative) talent wins out in the end, and that is fine, but this emphasis on how amusing the untalented and the mentally ill are is grating and unseemly.

The point isn't whether or not people know what they are in for - many people are so desperate for attention, for a few moments in the spotlight, that they will do almost anything - including subjecting themselves to ridicule - for the attention. That this show (and many others) take advantage of this sad, pathetic impulse is exploitation.

What a difference a day makes!

On "enjoying the show", I based that (perhaps mis-) characterization on a few comments of your own: "slick but not greasy; moved quickly enough to keep my interest; and had inherent drama" and "mildly compelling and superficially entertaining," as well as "I admit to a small thrill..." and the capper, "More of the same tonight - milk it baby."

I don't know, it still sounds like you enjoyed it somewhat, at least on Tuesday.

I can also make no comparison, since I too did not watch the last series until the final three episodes, and even then only when the atrocious ex-stripper (Nikki) was singing. It was the train-wreck mentality - it was so bad I had to stop and watch. However, I suspect, as you do, that the series were largely identical. Comparisons, however, I think are inherent in any discussion of this series, especially after you commented repatedly on the first (granted, only long after the fact).

I skipped the "where are they now" segment, since I really didn't care, but I can tell you where I came up with the rose-colored glasses metaphor. Of course, there are extenuating circumstances, and I suspect we feel nearly identically about this issue overall, but follow the facts:

Fact #1: You lambasted last season's producers for their treatment of the contestants. You said at the time that "It doesn't matter who won specifically - it would have been a bad contract for whomever." It isn't that you thought of the first batch of contestants as "artists" then, either, since in your Salon piece, you said, "But Clarkson is less an artist, in the old-fashioned sense, than the extruded product of an impersonal manufacturing process."

So generally, your view of the first season would appear to be negative.

Fact #2: Generally, you view of this season would appear to be more positive. At least based on your inital review, though your comments have made it clear that it is rapidly declining in your eyes. I referenced already some of the statements that seem to indicate some enjoyment of the show, including a desire to watch more episodes.

Specifically, however, you now extend the not-an-artist statement you originally made in Salon as a justification for the contract, more or less. That is, while an "artist" would be limited and horrified by such a one-sided contract, these hacks are simply "singers in a talent contest" and presumably not worth getting as upset about.

Conclusion: My concern is that after watching from week to week and growing increasingly familiar with your favorite two or three finalists, you might forget about these hacks that "exposure and the opportunity to sing before thousands is the most that they could hope for and what the show has given them."

If you become enamored (so to speak) with this year's Kelly or Justin, and protest again the contractual mistreatment of these artists, then you might look back here and see then what I mean now about rose-colored glasses.

Bottom line: They were talentless hacks last season, and should be (and apparently are) grateful to get the exposure (and contract) they got. They are talentless hacks this season, too.

But it's still an interesting show to watch!

Peace, baby!

Phillip, there is some contradiction in my views, granted. I liked the first episode this time around better than any thing else I had seen of the show, but as you noted, by the second night it was pretty much crap again, all rotten singers and insults.

Regarding the contract, it sucks for whoever signs it, "artist" or not. But if the question is: are the finalists from last time better off having appeared on the show or not, I would have to say probably, because the real bad parts about the contract - loss of creative control, inherent conflicts of interest - apply much less to "singers" than to "artists."

"Do I contradict myself? Very well then. I am large, I contain multitudes." Walt Whitman in LEAVES OF GRASS.

Thanks Carol, I wouldn't have given myself anything nearly so inspiring as an excuse.

I think the whole thing was just plain sad. The music industry doesn't really care about the artistic process anymore - it's about the dollars and the shelf-life of a particular trend or flavor.

I watched the first two nights (much of both episodes spent hiding my eyes from the screen - it was just too hard to watch the truly bad) and my only beef is around the 'audition' process. Clearly there are some out there who merely want to be on TV, and will do anything to get there. In the first two audtions BEFORE these guys got to the Simon/Paula/Randy audition, the starry-eyed dreamers were clearly given some hope that they had a shot. If you interview for a job, and keep getting referred on for more interviews, that implies interest in what you have to offer, right?

It's shameless (and shameful) that we as an audience have given TV execs the impression that we want and need to see people suffer humiliation as a sport/entertainment. The first two episodes emphasized the agony of defeat way more than the thrill of victory.. the few instances where some true talent emerged did not warrant the ~2.5 hours of purely horrid 'talent' ..

Who has a picture of the guy in the yellow suit?

Mike, You put it better than I did. The second night was just unwatchable as the insults and counter-insults became the show rather than hearing exciting young singers.

WHEN ARE THE NEXT AUDITIONS?

How old do you have to be to go on american idol?Do they keep you from going on if you are a certain age?