Let's get something straight here first and foremost. I'm just not that big of a fan of American Idol.
Oh sure, as strictly entertainment value while I'm eating dinner or whatever, it provides a harmless, and occasionally humorous enough diversion. I laughed as hard as anybody else during the Sanjaya segments from a few seasons back, and I especially love the earlier parts of the competition where guys like William Hung or "Pants On The Ground" guy are weeded out.
You go, Platt!
Still, I could use a lot less of the really nasty references to things like "monkeys" and "retards." That's just some really hateful stuff. But I digress...
In the cases of both aforementioned contestants, I especially love it when they actually catch on in a populist sense. To me, this is musical subversiveness at its most fly-in-the-ointment-best — color me nuts, but I was one of the guys actually rooting for Sanjaya, okay?.
That said, I have also wondered aloud to myself what would happen if some of the musical greats from the past were to go up before the American Idol judges? Would they pass the test? My money is on doubtful — but I'll let you decide. More on that in a minute...
Here's the thing though.
One thing that I like, watching this season of Idol as I usually do at about the same time the Pork N' Beans and Rice are sizzling on the burner, is that the judges seem a little more willing to break through the barrier of innocuous pop singers that have characterized the series thus far than usual...
I like that. I like that a lot actually...
As Kara told one contestant, at least in not-so-many words, "You are bringing something different to Idol — and maybe after seeing you, we can somehow find our way outside of this cookie-cutter crap."
Okay, I added that last part. But one can hope, right?.
On that note, they do seem to be looking for something a bit different this year than someone who can trill a Mariah Carey song like nobody's business. For which I can only say "Thank God" and good for them. It's about damn time, even if it's a case of too little too late.
To that end, my money is on the chicks this year.
Damn, did I really just say that? Not just the part about the chicks, but the admission that my money is actually on anybody?
Have I actually been drawn into this overblown karaoke contest that has, at least in my own humble opinion, contributed more heavily than anything else — including free internet downloads — to the downward spiral of the record industry this past decade? Am I really ready to sign on to the whole idea of the here-today, gone-tomorrow stars promoted by American Idol?
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - El Bicho
"Have I made my point?"
Not beyond the point that you don't like most singers on the show, and unless your a Nielsen household who cares?
They are not looking for unique voices or artists that will forever change the musical landscape. They are looking for pop singers and neither of us old-timers are the demo they are looking to appeal to.
Take a step back from what you like and tell me who in this day and age sings like Janis or Dylan is on the charts? Besides, doesn't the fact that they have Crystal Bowersox refute your assumptions to their reactions to Janis?
Also, a couple of your premises are totally wrong. To blame AU "more heavily than anything else â€" including free internet downloads â€" to the downward spiral of the record industry this past decade" is not only ridiculous but you offer no proof. Technology has caused the industry, and many others, for this major shift in the way it works and business models are still being created. I would also point out I have discovered more bands across more genres in the '00s than I did in the '90s when there were very few gates for musicians to squeeze through.
"Am I really ready to sign on to the whole idea of the here-today, gone-tomorrow stars promoted by American Idol?"
Comes off like you are saying this idea is unique to AI, which ignores the entirety of almost all pop music. Pre-Idol, many of the turn of the millennium boy bands came and went. And speaking of "here-today, gone-tomorrow" that defines every one-hit wonder band unless you are still following acts like the guys who put out the "Macarena," The Proclaimers, and Kajagoogoo.
"Are any of [the] Kelly Clarksons going to have any sort of a shelf life beyond their allotted fifteen minutes?"
Again, you need to look beyond your music collection. Seven years after Clarkson won AI, her fourth album hit #1. That's quite a long 15 minutes wouldn't you say? Also, 2004 winner Fantasia is currently touring with "The Color Purple", which she appeared in on Broadway and will likely star in the movie once Oprah gets that going, and 2005 winner Carrie Underwood is doing well for herself having three #1 albums over five years and won her fifth Grammy last year.
Have I made my point?
2 - Glen Boyd
Wow, Bicho. I must have hit a nerve here since your response was nearly as long as my article....
But lets put this in perspective, okay? First off, I would hope that its at least a little obvious that I wrote this article with my tongue firmly planted in my own cheek. Like a lot of the stuff I write, the idea came from a conversation I had over a few beers with a guy I play trivia with. We were both speculating on how the stars of yesteryear might fare on AI, and well, off I went...
That having been said, and on a more serious note, my biggest problem with AI is the method with which they measure talent. A Janis, a Patti Smith, or a Dylan would simply never make it on this show. All three are just too...well, you know "pitchy" and stuff.
The fact that an oddball like Crystal or Lily seems to be doing well this year however gives me encouragement that they are broadening their horizons. That I guess is my true point here, literary license that I took in making it aside...
I'm just glad these guys weren't calling the shots back when music was changing the world. We would have all been grooving to Mitch Miller if they had.
-Glen
3 - roger nowosielski
Great response, Glen.
There was a similar discussion on NPR today concerning the movies that were never nominated for or won the Oscars - such as The he 2001 Space Odyssey, Breakfast at Tiffany's, Apocalypse Now, The Last Tango in Paris, Pulp Fiction . . .
Some, because they were "director's movies," others because the majority of voters were "old farts," lots of reasons. Go figure.
Anyways, now they're classic.
4 - zingzing
"I'm just glad these guys weren't calling the shots back when music was changing the world. We would have all been grooving to Mitch Miller if they had."
that's why engelbert humperdinck sold more copies than "penny lane/strawberry fields forever." and this is the closest we've been to oligarchical control over the pop industry since the 60s in some ways. (the music industry, in total, is much more free.) there just weren't many ways you could really hear music without it being spun through a machine and pooped into your mouth back then. the major labels were it. you were being fed, although i guess you were being fed relatively well.
but... music didn't change the world. the world changed music.
5 - roger nowosielski
Well, zing, music is trying to change the world, no?
What's rock 'n roll if not a street theater?
6 - Glen Boyd
I was actually gonna' go a little further with this and put Patti Smith and Bruce Springsteen in the hot seat with Simon and company -- but then I ran out of both beer and gas at the same time.
Maybe next time...
-Glen
7 - roger nowosielski
Paul Simon, the musical genius?
8 - zingzing
music can try all it want to change the world, but it's people who inhabit a reality that change music and the world. unless music starts making itself (which has been tried... systems music is pretty cool shit...), it's always people who change the world.
9 - roger nowosielski
Of course, but you're being picky. Music is a vehicle.
10 - roger nowosielski
And BTW, do you mean "music making itself" on analogy with automatic writing?
11 - zingzing
yeah, well, "music changed the world" is hippie-dippie bullshit. i'm sure people in 1967 china would have been surprised.
meh. i understand the sentiment, but it's kinda ridiculous.
as far as "music making itself," there have been attempts to set up systems wherein the musical product of said system is undetermined by the system itself, as randomness is inserted into the system to such a degree that the system is destroyed. but that can only get so far. the randomness has to still conform to some set of pitches, tones, rhythms and timbres, or else it's just like letting a cat walk on a piano keyboard... if it had 88 feet and epilepsy.
"neroli" by brian eno is a relatively famous example of this. random notes are struck for random durations at random harmonic intervals, but the timbre is consistent. there's also "i am sitting in a room" by alvin lucier, in which a recording of the artist telling you the instructions for creating the piece becomes the piece, as it is, and it does have quite a musical result. but, it's just someone telling sound to do something, then it does it.
john cage also tried to take himself out of the compositional process, sometimes with fantastic results, sometimes with maddeningly ridiculous crap.
but yeah, automatic writing is a pretty good analogue.
12 - Brian aka Guppusmaximus
Personally, I don't believe that A.I. means jack squat to the living, breathing organism named music. If those contestants want to limit their creative experience solely based on fame & money then they will and it will always continue in that fashion while us music lovers will look for the talent and passion beyond the almighty dollar lovin' trend setters. I'll continue making music based on my love for the endless avenues that one can take to communicate. To me, A.I. is like a great commercial - It catches you for that 60 seconds then it can be somewhat fun to talk about but ultimately it leaves the brain after a couple of days. Music shouldn't be constrained to shallow formulas...
Those are my two cents and with that, go check out some of the rough tracks that my band has jammed @ October Arrest *shameless plug* See, We couldn't do this shite back in the 90s:)
13 - roger nowosielski
Interesting idea. I will check it out.
I'm sorry though you haven't lived through the hippie era. I'm certain your opinion would be affected thereby.
Let's say that music of the times reflected popular sentiment - early Elton John, Cat Stevens, et al. Better yet, it did serve to expand consciousness, not unlike grass or LSD.
14 - Glen Boyd
Well, color me one of those old farts hopelessly mired in my own "hippy-dippy bullshit" then I guess.
"Changed the world" probably is a bit of a strong statement though. How bout' "made a difference" then? Does that work better for you?
My point here is that guys like the Beatles and Dylan didn't just impact culture, they also affected the political landscape. Why else did all those hippy kids go out and protest the war, civil rights, etc.? Half of them probably just did it thinking they could get laid with all the free-love nonsense, sure. But they did it just the same.
Now, I wholly understand this is a different time, a different generation, and all the rest. I also understand that "American Idol" is an entertainment thing, plain and simple, and has its own place being such.
I just don't see Clay Aiken, Adam Lambert, or even Kelly Clarkson (who along with Carrie Underwood has had the only real longevity of the lot) having that same type of impact anytime soon.
All I'm sayin'...
-Glen
15 - Glen Boyd
Anyway, this one seems to have y'all talking, so I guess I've done my job here. We've even got the politics guys lurking about in our little music ghetto...LOL...
-Glen
16 - roger nowosielski
The problem with zing, Glen, is that he's got no idea how dynamic the times were - Vietnam, Civil Rights, Kennedy and Martin Luther King assassinations, Black Panthers and Malcolm X, Kent State, Free Speech Movement, Joan Baez, and the flower generation. Watergate was already anticlimactic.
We haven't had such explosive period in American history since, and zing can't simply relate.
The entire culture was undergoing upheaval, from music to Andy Warhol, Alan Ginsburg and the like.
We've become stagnated ever since.
17 - roger nowosielski
Hey, Glen,
Culture and politics are very related to me.
18 - zingzing
"Why else did all those hippy kids go out and protest the war, civil rights, etc.?"
because there was a war on and civil rights had been brewing for years. if there hadn't had been a war and civil rights wasn't coming to a head, do you think the beatles and dylan would have written about them? it's a chicken and the egg thing i'm getting at here, but the answer is obvious.
and certainly don't blame clay aiken, adam lambert, etc on a "generation," unless it's your own. you birthed em and you're the one selling them now. of course not you, particularly. and i'm not the one buying them either of course. still, comparing aiken and lambert to the greats of the 60s is like comparing the pop crap of the 60s to the greats of today.
19 - roger nowosielski
A chicken and question? No doubt.
But art and culture must respond to the times. If the times suck, so will art.
20 - zingzing
oh, roger... it's not the world that has stagnated, it's... no offense... you. you think war, civil rights, assassinations, government abuse and joan fucking baez went away? nope. you just stopped thinking about them the same way.
it was an unusual era, to be sure. a lot of things came together, or popped up at the same time. and it is amazing how much the world changed in that decade.
but the world has changed in exponentially larger ways since then. the only thing that hasn't changed as that people look back on their youth through rose-colored glasses.
21 - zingzing
"If the times suck, so will art."
that's not true at all.
22 - Glen Boyd
Not comparing them -- I mean, how could you? -- so much as I am pointing out the fact that the pop drivel which is so spoon-fed to the public by American Idol and the like will never impact the cultural zeitgeist the way that Dylan, the Beatles, etc. did.
And yes, I recognize that there was a fair amount of pop dreck around back in the sixties too. Can you say Herb Alpert and The Tijuana Brass? Okay, how about Bo0bby Sherman then? Back then, we called it bubblegum music.
But the fact is, that the sixties (and to a lesser extent, the seventies) was just about the only time (at least that I can remember) where the most artistically interesting music was also what was popular in the mainstream. Aside from maybe Radiohead, Jack White's various bands, or Wilco there's not a lot of bands making really challenging, innovative music that are having the same sort of commercial impact today.
An earlier commenter made the excellent point (actually I think it was you, zing) that the corporate suits are in control of music right now like no other time since the pre-Beatles 60's...at least I think that's what you said. And that is spot-on, dead on target, right.
As an old sixties "hippy-dippy" that is something which saddens me a lot more than it probably should.
-Glen
23 - Glen Boyd
One other thing...
I think a decent argument could be made that the times we are living in right now are every bit as explosive as the sixties were. I mean were in the worst economic times since the great depression, and we just came off of eight years of an American president who made Nixon look like a freaking choir boy.
The difference is that the musicians today are reacting to the world they see around them in the same way. And to me, that's really a shame.
-Glen
24 - Glen Boyd
AREN'T reacting to the world in the same way, meant to say above.
25 - roger nowosielski
zing,
Just think. Every flourishing of the arts is inseparable from the general flourishing of the culture - from Renaissance to any fucking period. You're making no sense.
Decadent times result in decadent art, unless we're talking about real geniuses who transcend their era and look toward the future.
But if you buy the latter proposition, then you're buying into the idea that arts can change culture.