American Idol

Re: American Idol

"iarwain" <iarwain_8@hotmail,com > wrote in message
news:8fa0d27e-275a-4f88-8047-890dbe436a5e@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups,com ...
>> 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.
>

Great post! However, debating with Jim is about as productive as
calling out the chords to your drummer. Jim just wants to disagree, it does
not matter what the topic is or what position you take.
My family is into Idol almost every year and I usually watch early on
when they still let a soul singer or two on the show. Every year is the
same formula though, with "cute" kiddies staying on while real players get
the boot. Hell, I read that this year people found out the good singers
actually have experience singing and the fans were upset by that! They want
somebody who sings like Aretha, but only in the shower.
The one good side to Idol is the band, those guys are top players and
Ricky Minor kicks butt. If you watch enough of it you're bound to catch at
least a couple songs a season that leave you saying "That bass line was
worth watching the whole show this week"
As for singers, well, whenever I see one start thinking she's above the
rest of us, I just ask "Hey can you count off the next song?" Or "I can't
remember, is this one in G or F#?" Then we see who's really running the
show.
-Jonathan

Re: American Idol

Jonathan wrote:
> Great post! However, debating with Jim is about as productive as
> calling out the chords to your drummer. Jim just wants to disagree, it does
> not matter what the topic is or what position you take.

I'm glad to see you took Victor's dick out of your mouth to contribute
another useful snipe at me.

Re: American Idol

Jim Carr wrote:

> I'm glad to see you took Victor's dick out of your mouth to contribute
> another useful snipe at me.


Oh, come on, it's not impossible to type a Usenet post with a dick in
your mouth...

Way to bring it down, dude.

Re: American Idol

Crash Bandicoot wrote:
> Jim Carr wrote:
>
>> I'm glad to see you took Victor's dick out of your mouth to contribute
>> another useful snipe at me.
>
>
> Oh, come on, it's not impossible to type a Usenet post with a dick in
> your mouth...
>
> Way to bring it down, dude.

I'm just getting a little tired of Jonathan. He says I'm in his kill
file, so he only replies to my posts when he reads it in somebody else's
reply. He never writes it *to* me, just *about* me.

And it's the same thing. Apparently I don't have any real opinions - I
just express a differing opinion for my own amusement.

That kind of passive-aggressive, pansy-ass stuff gets on my nerves. It's
no wonder that in his last band the leader would throw lemon slices at
him on stage and disrespect him in so many other ways.

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

Re: American Idol

"Jim Carr" <newsgroups@azwebpages,com > wrote in message
news:F34Wj.8755$bX3.7446@newsfe08.phx...
>>
>> Way to bring it down, dude.
>
> I'm just getting a little tired of Jonathan. He says I'm in his kill file,
> so he only replies to my posts when he reads it in somebody else's reply.
> He never writes it *to* me, just *about* me.
>
> And it's the same thing. Apparently I don't have any real opinions - I
> just express a differing opinion for my own amusement.
>
> That kind of passive-aggressive, pansy-ass stuff gets on my nerves. It's
> no wonder that in his last band the leader would throw lemon slices at him
> on stage and disrespect him in so many other ways.
>

Oh Jim, you could never stay in my Kill file for long, you're good for a
chuckle every now and then. I just keep waiting for something new from you,
but you refuse to deliver. At least I can count on you for a dick remark.
There, I said something directly to you, it should make for a nice entry
in your diary.
-Jonathan

Re: American Idol

Jonathan wrote:
> "Jim Carr" <newsgroups@azwebpages,com > wrote in message
> news:F34Wj.8755$bX3.7446@newsfe08.phx...
>>> Way to bring it down, dude.
>> I'm just getting a little tired of Jonathan. He says I'm in his kill file,
>> so he only replies to my posts when he reads it in somebody else's reply.
>> He never writes it *to* me, just *about* me.
>>
>> And it's the same thing. Apparently I don't have any real opinions - I
>> just express a differing opinion for my own amusement.
>>
>> That kind of passive-aggressive, pansy-ass stuff gets on my nerves. It's
>> no wonder that in his last band the leader would throw lemon slices at him
>> on stage and disrespect him in so many other ways.
>>
>
> Oh Jim, you could never stay in my Kill file for long, you're good for a
> chuckle every now and then. I just keep waiting for something new from you,
> but you refuse to deliver. At least I can count on you for a dick remark.
> There, I said something directly to you, it should make for a nice entry
> in your diary.

Dear Diary,

Today Jonathan finally noticed me. FINALLY! It made me feel all funny
between my legs. You know, like when you're climbing the rope in gym class.

-- deleted messages --

Re: American Idol

RichL wrote:

> Sometimes I wonder whether you're being intentionally obtuse! But I see
> you're the kind of guy who's all trees and no forest.

I don't get it.

> Of course if you viewed the show as a harmless diversion, there'd be no
> issue. But in a way it's setting the tone for the music industry as a
> whole. The industry, of course, loves it because the show's doing part
> of their work for them. No need to take a gamble on someone who might
> turn out to be unpopular.

First, if all 12 finalists got contracts, it would *still* be a drop in
the bucket when you look at all the new music that comes out every
single day. It's not just new artists competing for the label's money.
Established bands have to prove themselves marketable with every album.
Around here the guitarist for the Gin Blossoms gives guitar lessons and
runs an open mic night.

By my count there are over 700 albums (all genres) being released this
WEEK according to Billboard:

http :// www .billboard,com /bbcom/releases/releases display.jsp?rollDate=1

If you're claiming American Idol is having a major influence, it's up to
you to show it. From where I sit the American Idol isn't having any
major influence on the industry as a whole.

Second, why should the record companies "gamble" as you say? Like any
business, the bigger the risk, the higher the potential reward should
be. Bands get signed because they have shown themselves marketable and
convinced someone there's a good chance of them being marketable on a
larger scale. I'd say most new artists barely break even.

If American Idol provides an avenue for a lower risk candidate *and*
makes the producers profit along the way, I say more power to them.

Musicians like to bitch about the record companies, but I don't too many
mortgaging their house and chasing down investors to sell their music.
It's easy to bitch about somebody not "gambling" on you when it's not
your money at stake.

The distribution channel is there. My band is on iTunes, Rhapsody and
Napster (Radiobox). We have a website. But you're not going to see me
take $100,000 out of my house to buy advertising and send people around
to radio stations to get them to play my music.

Re: American Idol

Jim Carr wrote:
> RichL wrote:
<snip>
>
> You're "refusing" to watch it as a form of protest? It's just TV, Rich.
>

Exactly.


http :// www .michaelallsup,com /glass teat.htm

<snip>

--
Les Cargill

Re: 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??

You mean you actually watched it? Larry, Larry, Larry...

"Bloody awful" doesn't even begin to convey the true quality of it.
Catastrophic, maybe. "Cynical joke being pulled off at the gullible
viewing public's expense" is close, too, I think. "More predictable
garbage from Rupert Murdoch and Company" kinda gets at it. How 'bout
"You spend time watching the Fox Network and you get what you deserve"?

Re: American Idol

Brian Running wrote:

> You mean you actually watched it? Larry, Larry, Larry...
>
> "Bloody awful" doesn't even begin to convey the true quality of it.
> Catastrophic, maybe. "Cynical joke being pulled off at the gullible
> viewing public's expense" is close, too, I think. "More predictable
> garbage from Rupert Murdoch and Company" kinda gets at it. How 'bout
> "You spend time watching the Fox Network and you get what you
> deserve"?

An interviewer asked Simon Cowell awhile back how he felt being labelled the
antichrist of music by some Brit music magazine, he just sneered and
shrugged it off. The guy is making money faster than he can count it, if
you wanted a face to go with the decline of the music industry, there you
go. Somebody once pointed out that if AI had been around in the early 60s
and Bob Dylan had tried out for the show he wouldn't have made it past the
screening audition. AI isn't about good music, it's about *marketable*
music, and marketing over art is a big part of what has helped put the
industry into such a deep hole.

Re: American Idol

DGDevin wrote:
> Brian Running wrote:
>
>> You mean you actually watched it? Larry, Larry, Larry...
>>
>> "Bloody awful" doesn't even begin to convey the true quality of it.
>> Catastrophic, maybe. "Cynical joke being pulled off at the gullible
>> viewing public's expense" is close, too, I think. "More predictable
>> garbage from Rupert Murdoch and Company" kinda gets at it. How 'bout
>> "You spend time watching the Fox Network and you get what you
>> deserve"?
>
> An interviewer asked Simon Cowell awhile back how he felt being labelled the
> antichrist of music by some Brit music magazine, he just sneered and
> shrugged it off. The guy is making money faster than he can count it, if
> you wanted a face to go with the decline of the music industry, there you
> go. Somebody once pointed out that if AI had been around in the early 60s
> and Bob Dylan had tried out for the show he wouldn't have made it past the
> screening audition. AI isn't about good music, it's about *marketable*
> music, and marketing over art is a big part of what has helped put the
> industry into such a deep hole.

Too bad the newsgroup protocol automatically includes the date.
Otherwise, this post could be attributed to any decade.

As for Dylan, he is *precisely* the kind of guy that American Idol would
have promoted. You're confused because you think the show picks what
people like. Sorry, no. The judges early on make an educated guess as to
what the *audience* will like.

Dylan was a character. He was *exactly* what this country was looking
for at the time. Do a Google Images search for him and look at all of
the photos making him out to be some "cool rebel loner" - clearly there
was a LOT of image involved.

The only difference really is that today's "image" is a bit different
than that of yesterday...and it will be different tomorrow. It amuses me
that so many people like yourself want to pretend that *your* taste was
somehow pure, but everyone else's tastes are based on meaningless things
like image.

Like I keep saying, it's entertainment, which by nature is trendy and
fickle.


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

Re: American Idol

Jim Carr wrote:

> Too bad the newsgroup protocol automatically includes the date.
> Otherwise, this post could be attributed to any decade.

Perhaps two decades, Usenet not having been available to many folks outside
of that time frame.

> As for Dylan, he is *precisely* the kind of guy that American Idol
> would have promoted. You're confused because you think the show picks
> what people like. Sorry, no. The judges early on make an educated
> guess as to what the *audience* will like.

You're confused because you think you are justified in assuming beliefs I
did not express. I don't think the show picks what people like, I thing it
picks what can be sold. If they were judging food instead of singers they'd
always arrive at pizza because that's something easy to sell to the greatest
number of consumers.

> Dylan was a character. He was *exactly* what this country was looking
> for at the time. Do a Google Images search for him and look at all of
> the photos making him out to be some "cool rebel loner" - clearly
> there was a LOT of image involved.

He was what a segment of the population wanted, but a huge portion of the
music-buying public still wanted Pat Boone and Brenda Lee and Paul Anka.
Take a look at the hit music of 1961 (when John Hammond signed Dylan to
Columbia), count the number of Dylan songs, notice the number you get is
zero. Go forward year by year until you find a hit song by Dylan, notice
that doesn't happen until 1965. His first album sold 5,000 copies in it's
first year, it took him four years to get a song on the charts, so much for
Dylan being *exactly* what the country was looking for.

Someone like Dylan would perhaps have made it onto AI as a comedy
contestant, someone for the judges to wince and eye-roll over, but he'd
never make it past the first round because he'd have been too quirky to be
taken seriously. Above all AI wants "safe* music, a product they can peddle
with minimal fuss, they'd no more pick a folk singer who does protest songs
than they'd choose a thrash-metal screamer.

> The only difference really is that today's "image" is a bit different
> than that of yesterday...and it will be different tomorrow. It amuses
> me that so many people like yourself want to pretend that *your*
> taste was somehow pure, but everyone else's tastes are based on
> meaningless things like image.

What amuses me is people like yourself who first come up with a thesis and
only then think about maybe finding something to prop it up with. I have no
problem admitting I've enjoyed plenty of trashy disposable music over the
years, from Herman's Hermits to The Monkees, I think I even bought the first
couple of Kiss albums. But I can't help noticing that the artists who
really got under my skin forty years ago are still highly regarded all these
years later, so maybe I got it mostly right. That isn't to say the music
industry hasn't always tried to keep up with passing fads, yet somehow in
the 60s they still managed to find some artists who would make a lasting
impact. How many Americian Idol winners do you suppose will have entries in
the encyclopedia forty years from now?

> Like I keep saying, it's entertainment, which by nature is trendy and
> fickle.

It's also art, or at least some of it is, and that at it's best has a way of
moving people years, decades and even centuries later. The smart money is
on precious few AI winners making it into the first chapter in The History
of Popular Music.

Re: American Idol

DGDevin wrote:

> He was what a segment of the population wanted, but a huge portion of the
> music-buying public still wanted Pat Boone and Brenda Lee and Paul Anka.
> Take a look at the hit music of 1961 (when John Hammond signed Dylan to
> Columbia), count the number of Dylan songs, notice the number you get is
> zero. Go forward year by year until you find a hit song by Dylan, notice
> that doesn't happen until 1965. His first album sold 5,000 copies in it's
> first year, it took him four years to get a song on the charts, so much for
> Dylan being *exactly* what the country was looking for.

As I said, tastes are fickle. They didn't want a rebel loner in 1961.
Come 1965 the political climate in the USA had changed dramatically. If
you don't believe that, go read a history book.

That's just how it works. "Happy Days" and "The Brady Bunch" would not
make it today just like "South Park" and "CSI" wouldn't have made in the
early 1970s.


> Someone like Dylan would perhaps have made it onto AI as a comedy
> contestant, someone for the judges to wince and eye-roll over, but he'd
> never make it past the first round because he'd have been too quirky to be
> taken seriously.

Two words:
Sanjaya
http :// www .youtube,com /watch?v=1Z9tUs8kTgE


>> The only difference really is that today's "image" is a bit different
>> than that of yesterday...and it will be different tomorrow. It amuses
>> me that so many people like yourself want to pretend that *your*
>> taste was somehow pure, but everyone else's tastes are based on
>> meaningless things like image.
>
> What amuses me is people like yourself who first come up with a thesis and
> only then think about maybe finding something to prop it up with. I have no
> problem admitting I've enjoyed plenty of trashy disposable music over the
> years, from Herman's Hermits to The Monkees, I think I even bought the first
> couple of Kiss albums. But I can't help noticing that the artists who
> really got under my skin forty years ago are still highly regarded all these
> years later, so maybe I got it mostly right. That isn't to say the music
> industry hasn't always tried to keep up with passing fads, yet somehow in
> the 60s they still managed to find some artists who would make a lasting
> impact. How many Americian Idol winners do you suppose will have entries in
> the encyclopedia forty years from now?

It's entertainment. Personally, I don't care if they are "highly
regarded" or not come 10, 20 or 50 years later.

What does "highly regarded" mean anyway? That it appeals to a new, young
audience? That enough old people remember it? There's nothing wrong with
entertainment that is still entertaining years later, but it's still
just entertainment.

American Idol is creating entertainment and selling it to make money.
That's it. Period. Why you feel the need to condemn it because no
encyclopedia will mention any of the winners 40 years from now is beyond me.

>> Like I keep saying, it's entertainment, which by nature is trendy and
>> fickle.
>
> It's also art, or at least some of it is, and that at it's best has a way of
> moving people years, decades and even centuries later. The smart money is
> on precious few AI winners making it into the first chapter in The History
> of Popular Music.

Once you start *selling* it, then the artistic value declines sharply.
This is especially the case in music where so many other people are
involved in the production of the final product. By that I mean that a
painter doesn't have a recording engineer, mixing engineer, producer,
somebody to master it, and album art director all having a major
influence on whether somebody buys it or not.

This all boils down to me finding it amusing that so many musicians get
in a huff about American Idol.

Re: American Idol

Jim Carr wrote:

> As I said, tastes are fickle. They didn't want a rebel loner in 1961.
> Come 1965 the political climate in the USA had changed dramatically.
> If you don't believe that, go read a history book.

I see, so your first premise having collapsed due to a lack of historical
support now it's onto premise number two, but it is *me* who needs to do
more reading.

> That's just how it works. "Happy Days" and "The Brady Bunch" would not
> make it today just like "South Park" and "CSI" wouldn't have made in
> the early 1970s.

What a bizarre view of history. Today's version of The Brady Bunch is
called Hannah Montana, making gazillions of dollars too apparently. And
anyone who thinks fouled-mouthed humor was invented yesterday should check
out Lenny Bruce, or NatLampCo, or.... And so on and so forth, to claim
whole genres are tied to passing fads is really stretching the argument.
Somebody is always filming a western, there's always family sitcoms and
always cop shows and always game shows. AI is just a slick, large-scale
version of the talent show, feeding the eternal music industry appetite for
disposable pop. Ain't the end of the world however.

>> Someone like Dylan would perhaps have made it onto AI as a comedy
>> contestant, someone for the judges to wince and eye-roll over, but
>> he'd never make it past the first round because he'd have been too
>> quirky to be taken seriously.
>
> Two words:
> Sanjaya

Three words, did he win? They kept him around for awhile because millions
of teenaged girls decided they were crazy about him, but he didn't go all
the way, did he.

> Once you start *selling* it, then the artistic value declines sharply.

Shall we overlook the fact that much of the great art in history came about
precisely because somebody was willing to pay for it? Or that the way we
decide which art has value and which does not (regardless of whether it's
new or a thousand years old) is by how much somebody will pay for it today?

> This is especially the case in music where so many other people are
> involved in the production of the final product. By that I mean that a
> painter doesn't have a recording engineer, mixing engineer, producer,
> somebody to master it, and album art director all having a major
> influence on whether somebody buys it or not.

True, instead a painter traditionally had a patron who could advance or
withhold payment based on whether he liked the painting, there is no
shortage of stories from history about what a soap opera that often was.
Having the Pope stop by every few days to see how the ceiling is coming is
probably worse than having a pushy producer or engineer.

> This all boils down to me finding it amusing that so many musicians
> get in a huff about American Idol.

"Huff?" Who's in a huff? AI sells disposable pop fluff, that's just an
observation, nobody is asking for the death penalty.