It's that time of year again, when American Idol fans start braying about how sick they are of Paula Abdul playing nice and re-enacting her days as a Laker Girl and how tired they are of Randy Jackson yo'ing and dawg'ing forever.
AI junkies start to fantasize that Paula will quit the show to devote herself to other projects, such as doing choreography for a Reefer Madness sequel, or that Randy will decide to become a full-time guitar instructor, giving lessons to Slash-wannabes all day.
Even Ryan Seacrest gets in on the grouse-fest by saying that, whatever the judges spew, they owe the contestants at least a wee "kernel" of wisdom on how to get better.
But doesn't that presume that these judges know what's required for a contestant to improve? And isn't it true that what the contestants actually need to know is not just how they can improve, but specifically what they can do to turn themselves into a pop star?
I mean, Randy attempted to write a book on that very subject and we all know where that landed. (In the remainder bin at the local dollar store.)
Perhaps fans are holding Simon-Paula-Randy to too high a standard. After all, their primary function on the show is to help make American Idol good television. If they get something right in the music department along the way, well, hallelujah and pass the corn.
Similarly, I've always wondered why AI fandom and professional blabbers were so hard on the celebrity judges of yesteryear.
Did anyone really expect that Olivia Newton-John, the "queen of mellow gold," would come on AI and rip a kid younger than her daughter (who, by the way, is working on a record of her own) a new one?
Just this week Mariah Carey turned down an offer to join the American Idol judges’ panel because she knows she’s too nice (or too shrewd?).
Please. As Simon-Paula-Randy would say, "I'm keeping it real here."
I thought it was obvious that the celebrity judges were CELEBRITY judges. You know, they were on the show because tapping into our collective fascination with CELEBRITY judges pleased Mr. Arbitron. Because people couldn’t wait to see how much weight or botox or fashion nonsense the CELEBRITY judges would display. Because we missed the VH1 “Behind the Music” episodes on these CELEBRITY judges. In short, because it never hurts to know just a little bit more about CELEBRITIES.
Article comments
1 - TylerNewton
Thanks for your comments on AI judges.
You seem to be forgetting one aspect of it: the influence of producers on the comments of our AI judges.
In AI 2, it came out well after it aired that FOX execs wanted Ruben to win because of rumors that Clay was gay and FOX did not want a gay American Idol. One of the things FOX execs did was influence those judges by making sure they never said an ill-word about Ruben (go watch every episode of AI2. Not a single critique of Ruben).
Clay, on the other hand, did get ripped a few times, ESPECIALLY when during one episode with 4 or 5 people left, the producers came up to Clay 20 MINUTES BEFORE GOING LIVE AND FORCED HIM TO SING A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ARRANGEMENT OF A SONG HE PREPPED. Of course he bombed (Who wouldn't in this case??) and the judges ripped him.
Face the reality: the judges are no more than puppets for execs to praise the people they want to win. After 2 consecutive black AI winners, FOX is ready for a white AI winner, and they love Bo/Carrie/Constantine. One of them will win, if not for talent, than for boasting from the judges.
Fortunately for us Americans, those 3 are the best in AI4 so we actually get a good season of AI for a change.
2 - Sticker
Ty-
To the extent producers lean on the judges, I guess I would still lump it all into the "good television" (their standard) category.
I'm not sure, in the end, how much influence the judges/whoever have over the actual voting.
You are correct that in AI2 the judges constantly boosted Rube and fairly consistently ripped Clay Aiken, but AI2 ended in a statistical tie. Note to Ruben fans: I am not saying his election was illegitimate! He won! He's the second American Idol! But let's face the reality of the numbers here, folks. It could have easily gone the other way.
For one thing---and this is o/t somewhat, but here you go---as I recall the phone lines in the AI2 finals were completely maxed out. Each player (Ruben and Clay got about the same number of votes (statistically speaking), which corresponded with the phone line capacity.)
If 15M people were attempting to vote for one guy, about 13M got through.
If 25M people were attempting to vote for the other guy, about 13M got through.
When you have millions of votes cast, a 100K + change differential, in a race that has an artificial ceiling (at that time, phone line capacity) doesn't tell you much about the depth of the support on either side.
My point is this: even if there is all kinds of intrigue/finangling on the part of judges/producers, it seems to me that it's still very difficult to control the result.
Influence, yes. Control, no.
Even if the producers purposely changed the "Vincent" arrangement to, um, "challenge" Clay, it didn't really work. But it's more likely they changed the arrangement for some reason related to broadcast realities.
If I recall correctly, Mr. Aiken has said that that incident occurred b/c of time pressures. I would guess that happens in live tv, esp. when the show wasn't as experienced as it is now.
And who knows how much that motivated his fan base to get out there and "protect" him after word got around that he'd been put in a difficult position by broadcast realities?
Performances always have some aspect of a see-saw effect. For example, a bad one may cool off the casual supporter, but may motivate the committed fan to go on defense.
Another interesting aspect of this is the anti-judges vote. There are people influenced by the judges (I can't imagine liking a performer,but then thinking, "Oh, maybe I'm a ding-dong for liking him b/c Simon says he's bad"---the music universe is too big and grand for only one taste to rule), but there are also lots of people who become outraged at the judges' critiques and it motivates them to vote just to "show them."
This is an effect the producers must be hard-pressed to gauge, although I know they know it occurs b/c I have heard Paula comment something like "Okay, now he's going through just on the strength of the anti-Simon vote."
Here's my bottom line: yes, the execs and the judges have people they want to win for various reasons. However, I believe ultimately all those reasons, even the ones you alluded to (racial diversity, etc.), have to do with business.
Remember AI is churning out a "star" once a year. No business wants to create a new product to compete directly with other products it's trying to establish, unless it has to.
AI is a money-making enterprise and whatever they think will help them make the most money, in the short-term and long-term (controversy (or, as Simon would call it, suspense) in the short-term, a diverse--personally and musically---array of idols for the long-term) is what they will support.
It's all about money for them. Which is okay. They're in business to make money.
But the rest of us actually are interested in the music.
Thanks for your comments, Ty. Very interesting.
3 - Eric Olsen
very nice as always Sticker, interesting and insightful points. I agree Q rocked but he is best in very small doses - I think he would wear think very quickly as a regular. Once a season would be great, however.
Rather than providing actual "insight," I think the celebrity guest judges are there to lend legitimacy to the process: "well, if Elton John likes it, it MUST be good" (although he wasn't officially a guest judge). Thanks!
4 - Sandy G. #4
I love the show, I dont like the fact that Paula does not let Simon voice his opinion.She is always in his face. I know they are on hot seat themselves as well as the contestants but, they are suppose to be setting an example.
Keep up the good work with the show. Perhaps if the vocabulary of Randy improved It would help me understand what he is saying, Thank You for letting me voice my opinion.