American Idol

Maybe a bit off topic, sorry for that - but jesus this program (American
idol) is bloody awful... Do they not have any proper sound crew or have
auditions to clear out the debris beforehand??

Larry Shaw <larry@local-angle.com> wrote:
> Maybe a bit off topic, sorry for that - but jesus this program
> (American idol) is bloody awful... Do they not have any proper sound
> crew or have auditions to clear out the debris beforehand??

The auditions *deliberately* leave terrible people in the mix. It's so
the folks on TV and the people watching at home can make fun of them.

Gen X's version of "humor".

I refuse to watch, because of that and because the show elevates the
"star" at the expense of actual musicians.

I watch it on occasion, but have problems with it. First of all, Bob
Dylan, The Rolling Stones, Louis Armstrong, John Lennon, Miles, Jaco,
Joni Mitchell, and countless others that have given so much to the
musical world would have been eliminated in the first round. It's a
VERY narrow slice of what it music. Secondly, they DO leave talentless
people in the mix so they can be eliminated in the most callous,
heartless manner. True, these people need to understand (perhaps be
told) that they have no career in show business, but that can be said
without crushing people's dreams with cruelty. I fully expect Simon
Crowell to be found in a bloody pulp in some alley someday, and I'd be
the last to say he didn't deserve it. To me, ratings are not more
important than people. Guess I'm old fashioned.

Yet, on the other hand, some who make it through the trial by fire are
truly talented, and deserve success and exposure. Also, the band is
superior and as far as I can tell the music is never prerecorded.

YMMV.

BW

RichL wrote:
> Larry Shaw <larry@local-angle.com> wrote:
>> Maybe a bit off topic, sorry for that - but jesus this program
>> (American idol) is bloody awful... Do they not have any proper sound
>> crew or have auditions to clear out the debris beforehand??
>
> The auditions *deliberately* leave terrible people in the mix. It's so
> the folks on TV and the people watching at home can make fun of them.
>
> Gen X's version of "humor".
>
> I refuse to watch, because of that and because the show elevates the
> "star" at the expense of actual musicians.

You're "refusing" to watch it as a form of protest? It's just TV, Rich.

We all like to judge people, especially regarding something we can all
do to some degree. Part of the success of Cops is that we like to feel
better about ourselves by seeing the losers getting arrested.

As for elevating stars above actual musicians, why does that bug you? Do
you buy music based on the skills of the musicians or because you enjoy
the music and the person(s) performing it?

If you want to be an incredible musician, go for it. Nobody's stopping
you. If you want to be paid millions of dollars, find something that
millions of people will pay a dollar to see/hear you do.

--
Write a wise saying and your name will live forever.
- Anonymous

Jim Carr <newsgroups@azwebpages.com> wrote:
> RichL wrote:

>> The auditions *deliberately* leave terrible people in the mix. It's
>> so the folks on TV and the people watching at home can make fun of
>> them.
>>
>> Gen X's version of "humor".
>>
>> I refuse to watch, because of that and because the show elevates the
>> "star" at the expense of actual musicians.
>
> You're "refusing" to watch it as a form of protest? It's just TV,
> Rich.

It's not a form of protest. I just don't like it, so I don't watch.
Protesting implies that there's an attempt to get a message through to
someone. Unless someone's monitoring my TV without my knowledge, this
isn't happening in my case.

> We all like to judge people, especially regarding something we can all
> do to some degree. Part of the success of Cops is that we like to feel
> better about ourselves by seeing the losers getting arrested.

Sure, OK. I confess, I do watch cops on occasion. I don't think
there's a competition going on there for "best criminal", though ;-)

> As for elevating stars above actual musicians, why does that bug you?

Because there were times in fairly recent memory in which those who were
rewarded by stardom actually had decent musical and songwriting skills.
I realize that the pendulum has swung the other way, but I'm hoping it
will swing back while I'm still around, and I tend to reward those who
have those skills with my purchasing power.

> Do you buy music based on the skills of the musicians or because you
> enjoy the music and the person(s) performing it?

Both. And I prefer to see both in a single package. Actually, all
three: singing, playing, songwriting. Two out of three wouldn't be
bad.

> If you want to be an incredible musician, go for it. Nobody's stopping
> you. If you want to be paid millions of dollars, find something that
> millions of people will pay a dollar to see/hear you do.

It's not about me, I know my limitations and I do music on the side;
it's not my primary career, and it will never be. It's about
songwriters and musicians getting proper credit for their contributions
and being recognized by the general public.

RichL wrote:

> It's not a form of protest. I just don't like it, so I don't watch.
> Protesting implies that there's an attempt to get a message through to
> someone. Unless someone's monitoring my TV without my knowledge, this
> isn't happening in my case.

I was perplexed by the use of the word "refuse" which to me sounds like
you're on some sort of mission. I don't "refuse" to watch Reba - I just
don't watch it.

> Sure, OK. I confess, I do watch cops on occasion. I don't think
> there's a competition going on there for "best criminal", though ;-)

Sometimes I wonder, though.

> Both. And I prefer to see both in a single package. Actually, all
> three: singing, playing, songwriting. Two out of three wouldn't be
> bad.

I want to be entertained. I find Bob Dylan's singing at Concert for
Bangladesh to be infinitely more entertaining than any number of
incredibly talented singers I've heard.

> It's not about me, I know my limitations and I do music on the side;
> it's not my primary career, and it will never be. It's about
> songwriters and musicians getting proper credit for their contributions
> and being recognized by the general public.

I get that. What I don't get is *why* you feel like they deserve
"recognition" or "proper" credit. Maybe it's the bass player in me that
has always understood that singers always get noticed first and lead
guitarists second (if at all).

It's just branding, like in every other business. The name on the brand
is quite often had little direct influence on whatever it is you bought
(I doubt "Victoria" had much do with with my wife's bras).

I guess I approach it differently. Why do we need these elaborate
credits in movies, TV shows and even music albums? What other industry
goes into such excruciating detail? While Shelby might have "designed"
the Mustang, lots of other people contributed crucial design elements
right down to the shape of the gear shift, but the owner's manual
doesn't give us their names. However, I *do* know the name of the
assistant to the key grip on Platoon.

Jim Carr <newsgroups@azwebpages.com> wrote:
> RichL wrote:
>
> I want to be entertained. I find Bob Dylan's singing at Concert for
> Bangladesh to be infinitely more entertaining than any number of
> incredibly talented singers I've heard.

But doesn't the fact that Dylan's singing words he wrote have any
bearing on your respect for the guy? In a sense, you're making my
point. Dylan wouldn't have passed round 1 of AI, and I don't think
today's music industry would give a guy like him the time of day.

>> It's not about me, I know my limitations and I do music on the side;
>> it's not my primary career, and it will never be. It's about
>> songwriters and musicians getting proper credit for their
>> contributions and being recognized by the general public.
>
> I get that. What I don't get is *why* you feel like they deserve
> "recognition" or "proper" credit. Maybe it's the bass player in me
> that has always understood that singers always get noticed first and
> lead guitarists second (if at all).

I'm guessing here, Jim, but I'd imagine that at some point in the past
someone famous inspired you in some way to take up bass. I know that
for me, McCartney and Harrison, and to a lesser degree Brian and Carl
Wilson, inspired me. I can't say the same for those anonymous studio
guys who toiled away on Frankie Avalon's and Fabian's hits.

> It's just branding, like in every other business. The name on the
> brand is quite often had little direct influence on whatever it is
> you bought (I doubt "Victoria" had much do with with my wife's bras).
>
> I guess I approach it differently. Why do we need these elaborate
> credits in movies, TV shows and even music albums? What other industry
> goes into such excruciating detail? While Shelby might have "designed"
> the Mustang, lots of other people contributed crucial design elements
> right down to the shape of the gear shift, but the owner's manual
> doesn't give us their names. However, I *do* know the name of the
> assistant to the key grip on Platoon.

I'm not talking about studio musicians, who are apparently quite content
to toil on in anonymity. I'm talking about bands like the Beach Boys,
Beatles, Stones, Who, Queen, Pink Floyd, Sex Pistols, Police, U2, STP,
Audioslave, etc. where the fans know who plays what instrument, who
writes the songs, etc., as well as who sings on them. To me, its those
people who inspire others to play, and I happen to think that's a worthy
thing.

What fraction of Britney's fans do you think knows who plays bass on her
records? Better yet, what fraction of them are inspired to play bass?

RichL wrote:

> But doesn't the fact that Dylan's singing words he wrote have any
> bearing on your respect for the guy? In a sense, you're making my
> point. Dylan wouldn't have passed round 1 of AI, and I don't think
> today's music industry would give a guy like him the time of day.

He entertained me. I don't "respect" him for running a business based on
his talent at writing songs. I respect that he was willing to donate
some time to raise money for the folks of Bangladesh, but beyond that I
don't have respect or disrespect for him since all I care about is
whether I find his stuff entertaining (which I do).

Would he get the time of day these days? I'd say back then this country
was looking for a humble rebel who told the truth. That's not what they
want to day, so probably not. But if he struck some other nerve, he'd do
just fine.

There are plenty of talentless hacks becoming famous these days. So
what? That's how the entertainment industry works. You tickle a fancy
and get famous. That's why so many come and go, and few stay at the top
for many years. Many bands are not much different than mood rings and
pet rocks.

> I'm guessing here, Jim, but I'd imagine that at some point in the past
> someone famous inspired you in some way to take up bass. I know that
> for me, McCartney and Harrison, and to a lesser degree Brian and Carl
> Wilson, inspired me. I can't say the same for those anonymous studio
> guys who toiled away on Frankie Avalon's and Fabian's hits.

I had no bass idols whatsoever. To be honest I had been playing for
years before I ever heard of Jaco and played several more years before
ever listening to his stuff.

I just like bass. My personality over the years tends to put me in
positions crucial to the success of the endeavor. Whether it's out front
or behind the scenes is irrelevant.

> I'm not talking about studio musicians, who are apparently quite content
> to toil on in anonymity. I'm talking about bands like the Beach Boys,
> Beatles, Stones, Who, Queen, Pink Floyd, Sex Pistols, Police, U2, STP,
> Audioslave, etc. where the fans know who plays what instrument, who
> writes the songs, etc., as well as who sings on them. To me, its those
> people who inspire others to play, and I happen to think that's a worthy
> thing.

> What fraction of Britney's fans do you think knows who plays bass on her
> records? Better yet, what fraction of them are inspired to play bass?

So, you're saying American Idol is bad because whatever bands form to
support the winners will not inspire other musicians to take up the
instrument? Maybe I'm not following.


--
Write a wise saying and your name will live forever.
- Anonymous

> So, you're saying American Idol is bad because whatever bands form to support the winners will not inspire other musicians to take up the instrument? Maybe I'm not following

*******

Come on, Jim, is this concept really that difficult? American Idol
promotes the notion that the singer is the star, and that's it, no one
else matters. You're right in that the singer usually gets MOST of
the attention, but the trend is today that they get ALL of it. Now
you may just think that's the way it should be, and if so fine, but I
remember growing up in a much different, and if you ask me, much
richer, musical environment, where the entire band was valued for
their creative inputs.

I think you must be somewhat unusual in that no one inspired you to
play your instrument. Kids who grow up watching Britney Spears, or
maybe now Miley Cyrus, might get inspired to grow up to be a singer,
or maybe even a backup dancer. I don't see why that would plant the
idea in their head to play bass. These stars use differnet musicians
probably for every tour and who would notice? What is the message
that this sends? That musicians are anonymous and replaceable, and
thus not really important. They are nothing more than hired staff for
the star. In this scenario the pretty face trumps the people playing
the instruments and writing the songs. Having lived through musical
eras where this was not the case, this strikes me as pretty shallow.

As for Bob Dylan, I've always thought the fact that he had written all
those songs was the main POINT of what he was doing. Here is an
ARTIST, writing the material, playing it, and singing it. What he is
doing is on a whole different level than someone like Madonna.

I have almost never bought cds by people who were just singers, they
just don't interest me that much. Bands like the ones that Rich
mentioned truly CREATE their music, which I find infinitely more
interesting than some producer picking out a pretty face, pairing them
up with a decent song, getting a bunch of session guys together, and
letting the singer basically sing karaoke over it. It's the
difference between the Beatles and the Monkees.

iarwain wrote:
>> So, you're saying American Idol is bad because whatever bands form to support the winners will not inspire other musicians to take up the instrument? Maybe I'm not following
>
> *******
>
> Come on, Jim, is this concept really that difficult? American Idol
> promotes the notion that the singer is the star, and that's it, no one
> else matters. You're right in that the singer usually gets MOST of
> the attention, but the trend is today that they get ALL of it. Now
> you may just think that's the way it should be, and if so fine, but I
> remember growing up in a much different, and if you ask me, much
> richer, musical environment, where the entire band was valued for
> their creative inputs.
>
> I think you must be somewhat unusual in that no one inspired you to
> play your instrument. Kids who grow up watching Britney Spears, or
> maybe now Miley Cyrus, might get inspired to grow up to be a singer,
> or maybe even a backup dancer. I don't see why that would plant the
> idea in their head to play bass. These stars use differnet musicians
> probably for every tour and who would notice? What is the message
> that this sends? That musicians are anonymous and replaceable, and
> thus not really important. They are nothing more than hired staff for
> the star. In this scenario the pretty face trumps the people playing
> the instruments and writing the songs. Having lived through musical
> eras where this was not the case, this strikes me as pretty shallow.
>
> As for Bob Dylan, I've always thought the fact that he had written all
> those songs was the main POINT of what he was doing. Here is an
> ARTIST, writing the material, playing it, and singing it. What he is
> doing is on a whole different level than someone like Madonna.
>
> I have almost never bought cds by people who were just singers, they
> just don't interest me that much. Bands like the ones that Rich
> mentioned truly CREATE their music, which I find infinitely more
> interesting than some producer picking out a pretty face, pairing them
> up with a decent song, getting a bunch of session guys together, and
> letting the singer basically sing karaoke over it. It's the
> difference between the Beatles and the Monkees.



AMEN!!!

Beautiful post, Brotha!!

iarwain wrote:
>> So, you're saying American Idol is bad because whatever bands form to support the winners will not inspire other musicians to take up the instrument? Maybe I'm not following
>
> *******
>
> Come on, Jim, is this concept really that difficult? American Idol
> promotes the notion that the singer is the star, and that's it, no one
> else matters.

American Idol doesn't "promote" anything. They, like every other show,
try to get as many people to watch. This enables them to make gobs of
money. It's really that simple.

That said, the singer *is* by far the one person in the band to whom the
audience relates. I find this to be such a Universal Truth that I am not
going to waste my time explaining it.

If they took this exact model and tried to do American Guitarist (they
did try American Band), it would fail. Period.

> I think you must be somewhat unusual in that no one inspired you to
> play your instrument.

Having hung out here for a few years, I would have to agree. I never
cared about who played the instrument, only that I enjoyed how it
sounded. I remember spending a lot of time learning as much as I could
of the album "Not Fragile" by BTO. To this day I have no idea who played
bass.


> As for Bob Dylan, I've always thought the fact that he had written all
> those songs was the main POINT of what he was doing. Here is an
> ARTIST, writing the material, playing it, and singing it. What he is
> doing is on a whole different level than someone like Madonna.

I just find him captivating to listen to. I have no idea why.

> I have almost never bought cds by people who were just singers, they
> just don't interest me that much. Bands like the ones that Rich
> mentioned truly CREATE their music, which I find infinitely more
> interesting than some producer picking out a pretty face, pairing them
> up with a decent song, getting a bunch of session guys together, and
> letting the singer basically sing karaoke over it. It's the
> difference between the Beatles and the Monkees.

I love the Monkees. They rank right up there with Ohio Express in my
collection of favorite bubble gum music.


--
Write a wise saying and your name will live forever.
- Anonymous

> American Idol doesn't "promote" anything.

They may not intentionally be promoting musical trends, but this show
is insanely popular, and they really have had a big impact on music
today. I believe Chris Daughtry had the top selling album last year,
and ex-contestants are all over the radio. I'm sure they can't help
but be very pleased that their alumni have had such a big influence,
it was probably unexpected.

Here's the type of attitude they foster: Last week Maroon 5 played a
song. When it was over, Ryan Seacrest said "Maroon 5, everyone", then
"I'll talk to him right now" as he went over to Adam Levine.

> That said, the singer *is* by far the one person in the band to whom the audience relates.

I don't disagree with that at all. The question is if there is any
piece of the pie left over after the singer eats his portion, and how
big is it? The remaining piece has gotten smaller and smaller over
the last 10 years or so and I'm not sure there's even anything left
anymore.

> If they took this exact model and tried to do American Guitarist (they did try American Band), it would fail.

I did watch The Next Great American Band, I wonder if there will be
another season.

> I love the Monkees.

I like the Monkees, especially their movie Head. But they're a far,
far cry from the Beatles.

>
>> If they took this exact model and tried to do American Guitarist (they
>> did try American Band), it would fail.
>
> I did watch The Next Great American Band, I wonder if there will be
> another season.

I more or less accidentally caught most of one episode. I watched the rest
of the episode cuz when I turned it on I said "Hey, I know who that is!" It
was a group called "The Blackmon Family" I think was the correct spelling
but on the show they had just two and called themselves "the Blackmon
Brothers". I saw them sometime around 2000 or 2001 when they were opening
for Reba McEntyre at Wolftrap. The only point is they were not amateurs
like the Karaoke singers that frequent American Idol. I heard later that
they won the Band thing and they had a really good group called something
like Six Wire on there.
Gerry

> was a group called "The Blackmon Family"

The Clark Brothers were the winners of Great American Band, is that
who you mean? They and a somewhat generic but very good band Six Wire
were the best bands on there, and they were both country bands. There
was another good country band, Cliff Wagner and the Old #7, and a
pretty good funk band, Franklin Bridge. There wasn't really a good
rock band representative. There was a band of metal wannabes but they
were literally a bunch of 12 year olds. Kind of a modern day heavy
metal Osmonds. But the lack of a heavyweight rock contender was
pretty glaring, but probably a pretty good reflection of the music
scene today.

"iarwain" <iarwain_8@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a7fb3eb0-8ec9-4e0d-8e83-2027359ffa8f@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>> was a group called "The Blackmon Family"
>
> The Clark Brothers were the winners of Great American Band, is that
> who you mean? They and a somewhat generic but very good band Six Wire
> were the best bands on there, and they were both country bands. There
> was another good country band, Cliff Wagner and the Old #7, and a
> pretty good funk band, Franklin Bridge. There wasn't really a good
> rock band representative. There was a band of metal wannabes but they
> were literally a bunch of 12 year olds. Kind of a modern day heavy
> metal Osmonds. But the lack of a heavyweight rock contender was
> pretty glaring, but probably a pretty good reflection of the music
> scene today.

Yep, you're absolutely correct (on all counts). It was the Clark Family
Experience. http://music.aol.com/artist/the-clark-family-experience/1419607
I did remember that all of their first names started with A. I've got to
quit trusting this tired old memory I guess. The Blackmon Family is (here I
go with memory again) a Branson Mo based family group.

Gerry