Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
American Idol
Re: American Idol
DGDevin wrote:
> 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.
You're making the classic mistake of applying solid logic to
insufficient data. I'm telling you that you need more data because,
well, you do.
>> 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.
Now you've got plenty of data but seem unable to piece it altogether. As
I have maintained from the very beginning, AI is just a TV show. The
*specific* tastes of the public will vary over time, but we're still
humans interested in essentially the same things.
Thus The Brady Bunch, Roseanne, Leave it to Beaver and All in the Family
are all shows about family life. Yet each was a product of its time in
the specific way they appealed to audiences.
If you're going to say that artist "A" wouldn't make it on AI today, the
reality is that artist "A" wouldn't make it today period much in the
same way that Leave it to Beaver wouldn't make it today (except as a
porno).
The AI of yesteryear would be subject to whims and fads of yesteryear
just like it is today. Do you really dispute this? Or do you just get a
boner nitpicking the discussion until it's so far removed from the
original premise that nobody, including us, has any idea what we're
discussing?
I'm guessing the latter.
>>> 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.
In your own words, Dylan would not have made it past "the first round"
when in fact Sanjaya made it well into the finals. Neither of us was
talking about "winning". Obviously the winner of a TV show, a visual as
well as audio medium, will need to be *very* strong on the visual side.
Taylor Hicks was a *blast* to watch - I'd gig behind him any day. But
I'd never cut a record with him.
The 1965 Dylan would do just fine on a 1965 version of American Idol.
You or someone else pointed out that AI doesn't let artists do
originals. Given the climate of 1965, I'm betting that it is something
they would have considered if they thought they would have made a buck.
Remember, in 1965, you didn't have 50 years of rock to cover. There was
no Neil Diamond or Barry Manilow night. Artists were just coming into
their own writing their own music.
To bring this back to the point at hand, people are bitching about AI by
claiming that famous and respected artists of yesteryear wouldn't make
the show today. What I am saying is that AI would have failed as a TV
show back then had it *not* rewarded those artists that had mass appeal
at that time.
Do you dispute that?
>> 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?
I'm all for replying in-line, but it's bad form to take *one* sentence
out of a paragraph and argue it. You'll excuse me if I choose not to
respond.
>> 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.
Getting a woody again?
The vast majority of paintings are never seen. That's art. Commissioned
works are commercial endeavors. The artistic value *does* decline
sharply precisely because it is a work for hire. Sometimes it has
wide-ranging appeal, but the overwhelming majority is shit that nobody
but the "patron" sees.
In music the idea is to mass produce the item. While a patron may demand
the artist do something, the record producer can actually alter the
final product to what he believes is marketable. That's a huge
difference and much more intrusive than the Pope bitching at you.
>> 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.
Lots of people are in a huff right here in this newsgroup. They treat
the show with contempt. I say it's just a TV show reflecting the times.
--
Write a wise saying and your name will live forever.
- Anonymous
DGDevin wrote:
> 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.
You're making the classic mistake of applying solid logic to
insufficient data. I'm telling you that you need more data because,
well, you do.
>> 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.
Now you've got plenty of data but seem unable to piece it altogether. As
I have maintained from the very beginning, AI is just a TV show. The
*specific* tastes of the public will vary over time, but we're still
humans interested in essentially the same things.
Thus The Brady Bunch, Roseanne, Leave it to Beaver and All in the Family
are all shows about family life. Yet each was a product of its time in
the specific way they appealed to audiences.
If you're going to say that artist "A" wouldn't make it on AI today, the
reality is that artist "A" wouldn't make it today period much in the
same way that Leave it to Beaver wouldn't make it today (except as a
porno).
The AI of yesteryear would be subject to whims and fads of yesteryear
just like it is today. Do you really dispute this? Or do you just get a
boner nitpicking the discussion until it's so far removed from the
original premise that nobody, including us, has any idea what we're
discussing?
I'm guessing the latter.
>>> 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.
In your own words, Dylan would not have made it past "the first round"
when in fact Sanjaya made it well into the finals. Neither of us was
talking about "winning". Obviously the winner of a TV show, a visual as
well as audio medium, will need to be *very* strong on the visual side.
Taylor Hicks was a *blast* to watch - I'd gig behind him any day. But
I'd never cut a record with him.
The 1965 Dylan would do just fine on a 1965 version of American Idol.
You or someone else pointed out that AI doesn't let artists do
originals. Given the climate of 1965, I'm betting that it is something
they would have considered if they thought they would have made a buck.
Remember, in 1965, you didn't have 50 years of rock to cover. There was
no Neil Diamond or Barry Manilow night. Artists were just coming into
their own writing their own music.
To bring this back to the point at hand, people are bitching about AI by
claiming that famous and respected artists of yesteryear wouldn't make
the show today. What I am saying is that AI would have failed as a TV
show back then had it *not* rewarded those artists that had mass appeal
at that time.
Do you dispute that?
>> 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?
I'm all for replying in-line, but it's bad form to take *one* sentence
out of a paragraph and argue it. You'll excuse me if I choose not to
respond.
>> 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.
Getting a woody again?
The vast majority of paintings are never seen. That's art. Commissioned
works are commercial endeavors. The artistic value *does* decline
sharply precisely because it is a work for hire. Sometimes it has
wide-ranging appeal, but the overwhelming majority is shit that nobody
but the "patron" sees.
In music the idea is to mass produce the item. While a patron may demand
the artist do something, the record producer can actually alter the
final product to what he believes is marketable. That's a huge
difference and much more intrusive than the Pope bitching at you.
>> 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.
Lots of people are in a huff right here in this newsgroup. They treat
the show with contempt. I say it's just a TV show reflecting the times.
--
Write a wise saying and your name will live forever.
- Anonymous
Re: American Idol
Jim Carr wrote:
> You're making the classic mistake of applying solid logic to
> insufficient data. I'm telling you that you need more data because,
> well, you do.
My data is just fine, you're the one who wants to edit his contribution to
gloss over his earlier claims.
> Now you've got plenty of data but seem unable to piece it altogether.
> As I have maintained from the very beginning, AI is just a TV show.
> The *specific* tastes of the public will vary over time, but we're
> still humans interested in essentially the same things.
Did the talent shows of forty years ago get those kind of ratings, did they
spawn numerous imitations around the world, did record companies and tour
promoters leap to sign the contestants, did the media eagerly hype
everything to do with those shows, did the producers of those shows become
major players in the music business with their fingers in TV and tour
promotion and recording? No? Then it would seem that AI is casting a
somewhat longer shadow than the average TV talent show.
> Thus The Brady Bunch, Roseanne, Leave it to Beaver and All in the
> Family are all shows about family life. Yet each was a product of its
> time in the specific way they appealed to audiences.
You're ignoring that such shows are not merely products of their time, they
help to shape their time as well. Keith Richards' comment that rock n' roll
helped to bring down the Berlin Wall isn't entirely hyperbole, culture is
powerful. AI isn't interested in bringing down any walls however.
> If you're going to say that artist "A" wouldn't make it on AI today,
> the reality is that artist "A" wouldn't make it today period much in
> the same way that Leave it to Beaver wouldn't make it today (except
> as a porno).
Again, you're ignoring that many successful artists of today wouldn't stand
a chance on AI because they're too far from the safe, marketable product AI
is looking for. You could be the greatest blues singer on the planet, don't
bother trying out for AI unless you're willing to ditch the blues, because
Simon Cowell knows there isn't enough money in the blues to keep him happy.
That's why they tell the contestants what to sing early on, they want a safe
product, nothing that would rock the boat or irritate label execs who don't
own the rights to the music.
> The AI of yesteryear would be subject to whims and fads of yesteryear
> just like it is today. Do you really dispute this? Or do you just get
> a boner nitpicking the discussion until it's so far removed from the
> original premise that nobody, including us, has any idea what we're
> discussing?
>
> I'm guessing the latter.
Note my noble refusal to play that game by not suggesting digging in your
heels purely on your own say-so gives you wet dreams.
> The 1965 Dylan would do just fine on a 1965 version of American Idol.
Slick, but not slick enough. Dylan's music career didn't start in 1965, he
signed with Columbia and even had a powerful patron back in 1961, yet
despite your claim that,"Dylan was a character. He was *exactly* what this
country was looking for at the time," he apparently wasn't exactly what the
country was looking for at the time. His first album only sold 5,000 copies
in its first year, he didn't get a song on the charts for four years. The
data just doesn't support your position, thus your understandable need to
skew the discussion to a point in time where your position makes more sense.
And speaking of that, when Dylan did finally break big it was largely
because he was so different, not a great singer, kind of funny-looking, and
presenting material a lot of people found either laughable or infuriating,
but he tapped into a new current in which the traditional rules no longer
applied. How many AI winners answer that description? Can you see Simon
Cowell signing off on one of his contractually-bound singers doing protest
songs that piss off radio station owners and FCC Commissioners? Fat chance.
Cowell *owns* those winners, he's not about to risk his investment letting
them color outside the lines.
> To bring this back to the point at hand, people are bitching about AI
> by claiming that famous and respected artists of yesteryear wouldn't
> make the show today. What I am saying is that AI would have failed as
> a TV show back then had it *not* rewarded those artists that had mass
> appeal at that time.
>
> Do you dispute that?
You're missing the point, the complaint is that AI is merely strengthing the
hold mediocrity already has on the music industry. Yes, it's their right to
maximize their profits by offering a non-threatening product. But if nobody
had signed Dylan back in '61, or any other artist who stepped outside the
bounds of safety and conformity, well the 60s would have been bloody boring.
AI is the musical equivalent of McDonalds, is that a place you like to eat?
> Getting a woody again?
Your fascination with my degree of tumescence is becoming disturbing....
> The vast majority of paintings are never seen. That's art.
> Commissioned works are commercial endeavors. The artistic value
> *does* decline sharply precisely because it is a work for hire.
> Sometimes it has wide-ranging appeal, but the overwhelming majority
> is shit that nobody but the "patron" sees.
Look, just pick up a copy of Janson's History of Art and pay attention to
the names, stop and think about the fact that every artist in there you've
ever heard of was working for money, from Donetello to Picasso, they all
wanted to get paid and they often worked to order whether your knowledge of
art will concede that point or not. Sometimes their patrons wanted
something safe and conventional (like AI) and it took time for the artist's
genius to become apparent, but odds are we'll never be startled to realize
that the winners of AI turned out to be the greatest singers of the 21st
century. As to how you can despise visual artists who work on commission
but defend AI for turning out mass-market pablum, well, that's coffeshop
philosophy I suppose.
Whatever, anything beyond this is just running laps.
Jim Carr wrote:
> You're making the classic mistake of applying solid logic to
> insufficient data. I'm telling you that you need more data because,
> well, you do.
My data is just fine, you're the one who wants to edit his contribution to
gloss over his earlier claims.
> Now you've got plenty of data but seem unable to piece it altogether.
> As I have maintained from the very beginning, AI is just a TV show.
> The *specific* tastes of the public will vary over time, but we're
> still humans interested in essentially the same things.
Did the talent shows of forty years ago get those kind of ratings, did they
spawn numerous imitations around the world, did record companies and tour
promoters leap to sign the contestants, did the media eagerly hype
everything to do with those shows, did the producers of those shows become
major players in the music business with their fingers in TV and tour
promotion and recording? No? Then it would seem that AI is casting a
somewhat longer shadow than the average TV talent show.
> Thus The Brady Bunch, Roseanne, Leave it to Beaver and All in the
> Family are all shows about family life. Yet each was a product of its
> time in the specific way they appealed to audiences.
You're ignoring that such shows are not merely products of their time, they
help to shape their time as well. Keith Richards' comment that rock n' roll
helped to bring down the Berlin Wall isn't entirely hyperbole, culture is
powerful. AI isn't interested in bringing down any walls however.
> If you're going to say that artist "A" wouldn't make it on AI today,
> the reality is that artist "A" wouldn't make it today period much in
> the same way that Leave it to Beaver wouldn't make it today (except
> as a porno).
Again, you're ignoring that many successful artists of today wouldn't stand
a chance on AI because they're too far from the safe, marketable product AI
is looking for. You could be the greatest blues singer on the planet, don't
bother trying out for AI unless you're willing to ditch the blues, because
Simon Cowell knows there isn't enough money in the blues to keep him happy.
That's why they tell the contestants what to sing early on, they want a safe
product, nothing that would rock the boat or irritate label execs who don't
own the rights to the music.
> The AI of yesteryear would be subject to whims and fads of yesteryear
> just like it is today. Do you really dispute this? Or do you just get
> a boner nitpicking the discussion until it's so far removed from the
> original premise that nobody, including us, has any idea what we're
> discussing?
>
> I'm guessing the latter.
Note my noble refusal to play that game by not suggesting digging in your
heels purely on your own say-so gives you wet dreams.
> The 1965 Dylan would do just fine on a 1965 version of American Idol.
Slick, but not slick enough. Dylan's music career didn't start in 1965, he
signed with Columbia and even had a powerful patron back in 1961, yet
despite your claim that,"Dylan was a character. He was *exactly* what this
country was looking for at the time," he apparently wasn't exactly what the
country was looking for at the time. His first album only sold 5,000 copies
in its first year, he didn't get a song on the charts for four years. The
data just doesn't support your position, thus your understandable need to
skew the discussion to a point in time where your position makes more sense.
And speaking of that, when Dylan did finally break big it was largely
because he was so different, not a great singer, kind of funny-looking, and
presenting material a lot of people found either laughable or infuriating,
but he tapped into a new current in which the traditional rules no longer
applied. How many AI winners answer that description? Can you see Simon
Cowell signing off on one of his contractually-bound singers doing protest
songs that piss off radio station owners and FCC Commissioners? Fat chance.
Cowell *owns* those winners, he's not about to risk his investment letting
them color outside the lines.
> To bring this back to the point at hand, people are bitching about AI
> by claiming that famous and respected artists of yesteryear wouldn't
> make the show today. What I am saying is that AI would have failed as
> a TV show back then had it *not* rewarded those artists that had mass
> appeal at that time.
>
> Do you dispute that?
You're missing the point, the complaint is that AI is merely strengthing the
hold mediocrity already has on the music industry. Yes, it's their right to
maximize their profits by offering a non-threatening product. But if nobody
had signed Dylan back in '61, or any other artist who stepped outside the
bounds of safety and conformity, well the 60s would have been bloody boring.
AI is the musical equivalent of McDonalds, is that a place you like to eat?
> Getting a woody again?
Your fascination with my degree of tumescence is becoming disturbing....
> The vast majority of paintings are never seen. That's art.
> Commissioned works are commercial endeavors. The artistic value
> *does* decline sharply precisely because it is a work for hire.
> Sometimes it has wide-ranging appeal, but the overwhelming majority
> is shit that nobody but the "patron" sees.
Look, just pick up a copy of Janson's History of Art and pay attention to
the names, stop and think about the fact that every artist in there you've
ever heard of was working for money, from Donetello to Picasso, they all
wanted to get paid and they often worked to order whether your knowledge of
art will concede that point or not. Sometimes their patrons wanted
something safe and conventional (like AI) and it took time for the artist's
genius to become apparent, but odds are we'll never be startled to realize
that the winners of AI turned out to be the greatest singers of the 21st
century. As to how you can despise visual artists who work on commission
but defend AI for turning out mass-market pablum, well, that's coffeshop
philosophy I suppose.
Whatever, anything beyond this is just running laps.
Re: American Idol
> As for Dylan, he is *precisely* the kind of guy that American Idol would have promoted.
I thought you just said American Idol doens't promote anything? Nah,
just kidding, I know what you meant. Anyway, I completely disagree,
no way Dylan makes it on this show. He couldn't play HIS songs, and
up until this year he couldn't play his guitar. Also, the judges are
always pointing out that it's a singing contest - they want to see
melismas and singers belting it out. That wasn't Dylan's style.
> It amuses me that so many people like yourself want to pretend that *your* taste wassomehow pure, but everyone else's tastes are based on meaningless things like image.
There's some validity to this statement, image has always been a
component of what the labels have been looking for. It's just a
matter of degree. There used to be more substance, now it's more
about style. It's not just AI's fault, MTV had a lot to do with
sending us down this road as well.
> As for Dylan, he is *precisely* the kind of guy that American Idol would have promoted.
I thought you just said American Idol doens't promote anything? Nah,
just kidding, I know what you meant. Anyway, I completely disagree,
no way Dylan makes it on this show. He couldn't play HIS songs, and
up until this year he couldn't play his guitar. Also, the judges are
always pointing out that it's a singing contest - they want to see
melismas and singers belting it out. That wasn't Dylan's style.
> It amuses me that so many people like yourself want to pretend that *your* taste wassomehow pure, but everyone else's tastes are based on meaningless things like image.
There's some validity to this statement, image has always been a
component of what the labels have been looking for. It's just a
matter of degree. There used to be more substance, now it's more
about style. It's not just AI's fault, MTV had a lot to do with
sending us down this road as well.
Re: American Idol
Just because American Idol wouldn't have validated Dylan in 1962 doesn't
mean that they wouldn't find a Debbie Dovale or a Robin Ward.
There's always been room for both.
I don't see any Thom York's up there now.
Monkey Pi
--
|o| o , o ,' o , |o|
|O| <%'. `' === <\ |O|
(0) / | ( )`-' | / | (0)
p-----MonkeyMonkeyMonkey-----q
Just because American Idol wouldn't have validated Dylan in 1962 doesn't
mean that they wouldn't find a Debbie Dovale or a Robin Ward.
There's always been room for both.
I don't see any Thom York's up there now.
Monkey Pi
--
|o| o , o ,' o , |o|
|O| <%'. `' === <\ |O|
(0) / | ( )`-' | / | (0)
p-----MonkeyMonkeyMonkey-----q
Re: American Idol
> Just because American Idol wouldn't have validated Dylan in 1962 doesn't mean that they wouldn't find a Debbie Dovale or a Robin Ward.
Whoa! You've got to win something for obscure artist mention! Debbie
Dovale and Robin Ward. Wow. There was that brief period in between the
doo-wop '50s and the British invasion of 1964 where the girl groups
reigned. It's a mostly-forgotten, overshadowed era now, but what a
wonderful, innocent time for pop music. You guys know I'm a Barry
Manilow fan, now, so I might as well admit, I've always had a thing
about the girl groups, too. Two songs that really define that time for
me, two of my favorite all-time songs: "He's the Kind of Boy You Can't
Forget" by the Raindrops, and "Maybe I Know" by Leslie Gore. "Wonderful
Summer" by Robin Ward is in that same class. Thanks for the little
time-trip!
> Just because American Idol wouldn't have validated Dylan in 1962 doesn't mean that they wouldn't find a Debbie Dovale or a Robin Ward.
Whoa! You've got to win something for obscure artist mention! Debbie
Dovale and Robin Ward. Wow. There was that brief period in between the
doo-wop '50s and the British invasion of 1964 where the girl groups
reigned. It's a mostly-forgotten, overshadowed era now, but what a
wonderful, innocent time for pop music. You guys know I'm a Barry
Manilow fan, now, so I might as well admit, I've always had a thing
about the girl groups, too. Two songs that really define that time for
me, two of my favorite all-time songs: "He's the Kind of Boy You Can't
Forget" by the Raindrops, and "Maybe I Know" by Leslie Gore. "Wonderful
Summer" by Robin Ward is in that same class. Thanks for the little
time-trip!
Re: American Idol
iarwain wrote:
>> As for Dylan, he is *precisely* the kind of guy that American Idol would have promoted.
>
> I thought you just said American Idol doens't promote anything? Nah,
> just kidding, I know what you meant. Anyway, I completely disagree,
> no way Dylan makes it on this show. He couldn't play HIS songs, and
> up until this year he couldn't play his guitar. Also, the judges are
> always pointing out that it's a singing contest - they want to see
> melismas and singers belting it out. That wasn't Dylan's style.
If the 1965 Dylan auditioned for 2008 American Idol, he would fail. If
2008 American Idol selected musicians in the mid '60s like they do
today, the show would fail.
American Idol is reacting to the times, not dictating them.
>> It amuses me that so many people like yourself want to pretend that *your* taste wassomehow pure, but everyone else's tastes are based on meaningless things like image.
>
> There's some validity to this statement, image has always been a
> component of what the labels have been looking for. It's just a
> matter of degree. There used to be more substance, now it's more
> about style. It's not just AI's fault, MTV had a lot to do with
> sending us down this road as well.
Oh, c'mon. One reason the money distribution for record deals is so
goofy today is that in the early years the producers did most of the
work and simply hired a "face" for the music they had someone else
write. That's why so much money today goes to the record companies
(inertia). We bass players all know how Jamerson and those studio
musicians brought the music to life only to hand it off to what were
essentially cover bands to bring it on tour and sell albums.
From the very beginning the face of the music has been vitally
important. I happen to really like the body of work by The Beatles, but
I'm pretty damned sure that if the Fab Four were the Fat Four with bad
skin and crew cuts, I never would have heard of them.
I'd say these days it is *less* about style than in years past because
today most but certainly not all artists are at least writing and
performing their own music. If a singer using the work of others gets
famous, then she will usually try writing and performing her own work -
which is sometimes her downfall.
To me Britney Spears and The Hanson Brothers are not much different than
Frankie Avalon or Leif Garret.
--
Write a wise saying and your name will live forever.
- Anonymous
iarwain wrote:
>> As for Dylan, he is *precisely* the kind of guy that American Idol would have promoted.
>
> I thought you just said American Idol doens't promote anything? Nah,
> just kidding, I know what you meant. Anyway, I completely disagree,
> no way Dylan makes it on this show. He couldn't play HIS songs, and
> up until this year he couldn't play his guitar. Also, the judges are
> always pointing out that it's a singing contest - they want to see
> melismas and singers belting it out. That wasn't Dylan's style.
If the 1965 Dylan auditioned for 2008 American Idol, he would fail. If
2008 American Idol selected musicians in the mid '60s like they do
today, the show would fail.
American Idol is reacting to the times, not dictating them.
>> It amuses me that so many people like yourself want to pretend that *your* taste wassomehow pure, but everyone else's tastes are based on meaningless things like image.
>
> There's some validity to this statement, image has always been a
> component of what the labels have been looking for. It's just a
> matter of degree. There used to be more substance, now it's more
> about style. It's not just AI's fault, MTV had a lot to do with
> sending us down this road as well.
Oh, c'mon. One reason the money distribution for record deals is so
goofy today is that in the early years the producers did most of the
work and simply hired a "face" for the music they had someone else
write. That's why so much money today goes to the record companies
(inertia). We bass players all know how Jamerson and those studio
musicians brought the music to life only to hand it off to what were
essentially cover bands to bring it on tour and sell albums.
From the very beginning the face of the music has been vitally
important. I happen to really like the body of work by The Beatles, but
I'm pretty damned sure that if the Fab Four were the Fat Four with bad
skin and crew cuts, I never would have heard of them.
I'd say these days it is *less* about style than in years past because
today most but certainly not all artists are at least writing and
performing their own music. If a singer using the work of others gets
famous, then she will usually try writing and performing her own work -
which is sometimes her downfall.
To me Britney Spears and The Hanson Brothers are not much different than
Frankie Avalon or Leif Garret.
--
Write a wise saying and your name will live forever.
- Anonymous
Re: American Idol
Jim Carr <newsgroups@azwebpages . com > wrote:
> iarwain wrote:
>>> As for Dylan, he is *precisely* the kind of guy that American Idol
>>> would have promoted.
>>
>> I thought you just said American Idol doens't promote anything? Nah,
>> just kidding, I know what you meant. Anyway, I completely disagree,
>> no way Dylan makes it on this show. He couldn't play HIS songs, and
>> up until this year he couldn't play his guitar. Also, the judges are
>> always pointing out that it's a singing contest - they want to see
>> melismas and singers belting it out. That wasn't Dylan's style.
>
> If the 1965 Dylan auditioned for 2008 American Idol, he would fail. If
> 2008 American Idol selected musicians in the mid '60s like they do
> today, the show would fail.
>
> American Idol is reacting to the times, not dictating them.
It's a bit of both, I think. Sure, the trend started well before AI,
but other pathways exist. "Greatest American Band" was a step in the
right direction, but it was a baby step, in that for the most part the
bands had the songs that they performed dictated to them, or at least
they were given pretty tight parameters, e.g., "tonight is Queen night,
everyone has to do a song by Queen.
>>> It amuses me that so many people like yourself want to pretend that
>>> *your* taste wassomehow pure, but everyone else's tastes are based
>>> on meaningless things like image.
>>
>> There's some validity to this statement, image has always been a
>> component of what the labels have been looking for. It's just a
>> matter of degree. There used to be more substance, now it's more
>> about style. It's not just AI's fault, MTV had a lot to do with
>> sending us down this road as well.
>
> Oh, c'mon. One reason the money distribution for record deals is so
> goofy today is that in the early years the producers did most of the
> work and simply hired a "face" for the music they had someone else
> write. That's why so much money today goes to the record companies
> (inertia). We bass players all know how Jamerson and those studio
> musicians brought the music to life only to hand it off to what were
> essentially cover bands to bring it on tour and sell albums.
That was true in the US model but for the most part not in the British
model of the 60s (the one that inspired a generation of new musicians).
And to me it's a prime reason why the Brit bands in that era eventually
came to be more popular than their American counterparts.
> From the very beginning the face of the music has been vitally
> important. I happen to really like the body of work by The Beatles,
> but I'm pretty damned sure that if the Fab Four were the Fat Four
> with bad skin and crew cuts, I never would have heard of them.
Sure, image has always been a part of the mix, but there was a lot more
to it than that. The Beatles progressed beyond that initial cutie-pie
stage because they had something that their competition didn't::
creativity. You think that music would have progressed to the extent it
did in the sixties if all we had to listen to were studio-hired cutie
pies singing songs backed written by label employees and backed by
studio musicians? Jim, this isn't where the great revolutions and
evolutions in music comes from.
> I'd say these days it is *less* about style than in years past because
> today most but certainly not all artists are at least writing and
> performing their own music. If a singer using the work of others gets
> famous, then she will usually try writing and performing her own work
> - which is sometimes her downfall.
>
> To me Britney Spears and The Hanson Brothers are not much different
> than Frankie Avalon or Leif Garret.
No, you're right, they aren't. But to me Avalon is symbolic of the
great chasm between the real rock & roll of the mid-fifties and the
guitar-based bands of the early-to-mid sixties. Those folks (Avalon,
Fabian, Pat Boone, etc.) were basically treading water creativity-wise
until the next wave of real bands hit.
Musical innovation simply doesn't come from that direction, generally.
That model produces pablum, for the most part. It may be enough to
satisfy the great masses, but that doesn't mean that musicians should
sit still for it.
I'm not saying it's worse than it's ever been; I'm saying it's as bad as
it's been in past bad times. And I'm waiting for the pendulum to swing
back.
Maybe you had to be around back then and be tuned into the music scene
to appreciate the excitement associated with the advances in rock during
the 60s and the degree to which it was driven by musicians.
Jim Carr <newsgroups@azwebpages . com > wrote:
> iarwain wrote:
>>> As for Dylan, he is *precisely* the kind of guy that American Idol
>>> would have promoted.
>>
>> I thought you just said American Idol doens't promote anything? Nah,
>> just kidding, I know what you meant. Anyway, I completely disagree,
>> no way Dylan makes it on this show. He couldn't play HIS songs, and
>> up until this year he couldn't play his guitar. Also, the judges are
>> always pointing out that it's a singing contest - they want to see
>> melismas and singers belting it out. That wasn't Dylan's style.
>
> If the 1965 Dylan auditioned for 2008 American Idol, he would fail. If
> 2008 American Idol selected musicians in the mid '60s like they do
> today, the show would fail.
>
> American Idol is reacting to the times, not dictating them.
It's a bit of both, I think. Sure, the trend started well before AI,
but other pathways exist. "Greatest American Band" was a step in the
right direction, but it was a baby step, in that for the most part the
bands had the songs that they performed dictated to them, or at least
they were given pretty tight parameters, e.g., "tonight is Queen night,
everyone has to do a song by Queen.
>>> It amuses me that so many people like yourself want to pretend that
>>> *your* taste wassomehow pure, but everyone else's tastes are based
>>> on meaningless things like image.
>>
>> There's some validity to this statement, image has always been a
>> component of what the labels have been looking for. It's just a
>> matter of degree. There used to be more substance, now it's more
>> about style. It's not just AI's fault, MTV had a lot to do with
>> sending us down this road as well.
>
> Oh, c'mon. One reason the money distribution for record deals is so
> goofy today is that in the early years the producers did most of the
> work and simply hired a "face" for the music they had someone else
> write. That's why so much money today goes to the record companies
> (inertia). We bass players all know how Jamerson and those studio
> musicians brought the music to life only to hand it off to what were
> essentially cover bands to bring it on tour and sell albums.
That was true in the US model but for the most part not in the British
model of the 60s (the one that inspired a generation of new musicians).
And to me it's a prime reason why the Brit bands in that era eventually
came to be more popular than their American counterparts.
> From the very beginning the face of the music has been vitally
> important. I happen to really like the body of work by The Beatles,
> but I'm pretty damned sure that if the Fab Four were the Fat Four
> with bad skin and crew cuts, I never would have heard of them.
Sure, image has always been a part of the mix, but there was a lot more
to it than that. The Beatles progressed beyond that initial cutie-pie
stage because they had something that their competition didn't::
creativity. You think that music would have progressed to the extent it
did in the sixties if all we had to listen to were studio-hired cutie
pies singing songs backed written by label employees and backed by
studio musicians? Jim, this isn't where the great revolutions and
evolutions in music comes from.
> I'd say these days it is *less* about style than in years past because
> today most but certainly not all artists are at least writing and
> performing their own music. If a singer using the work of others gets
> famous, then she will usually try writing and performing her own work
> - which is sometimes her downfall.
>
> To me Britney Spears and The Hanson Brothers are not much different
> than Frankie Avalon or Leif Garret.
No, you're right, they aren't. But to me Avalon is symbolic of the
great chasm between the real rock & roll of the mid-fifties and the
guitar-based bands of the early-to-mid sixties. Those folks (Avalon,
Fabian, Pat Boone, etc.) were basically treading water creativity-wise
until the next wave of real bands hit.
Musical innovation simply doesn't come from that direction, generally.
That model produces pablum, for the most part. It may be enough to
satisfy the great masses, but that doesn't mean that musicians should
sit still for it.
I'm not saying it's worse than it's ever been; I'm saying it's as bad as
it's been in past bad times. And I'm waiting for the pendulum to swing
back.
Maybe you had to be around back then and be tuned into the music scene
to appreciate the excitement associated with the advances in rock during
the 60s and the degree to which it was driven by musicians.
Re: American Idol
>"Greatest American Band" was a step in the right direction, but it was a ba=
by step
Another thing about American Band was they gave it a lousy time slot.
They aired it on Friday nights, which is where shows go to die. The
younger crowd is usually out on Friday night. So I don't know if this
means they had no faith in it or not, but it wasn't really given an
opportunity to pull in really big ratings. American Idol was the US
version of the British show (Pop Idol, I think?), which was very big
over there, so there was precedence for its success.
Normally, I would snip the rest of your post, but regarding your
comments on image and innovation as stated below, I couldn't have said
it better:
> Sure, image has always been a part of the mix, but there was a lot more
> to it than that. The Beatles progressed beyond that initial cutie-pie
> stage because they had something that their competition didn't::
> creativity. You think that music would have progressed to the extent it=
> did in the sixties if all we had to listen to were studio-hired cutie
> pies singing songs backed written by label employees and backed by
> studio musicians? Jim, this isn't where the great revolutions and
> evolutions in music comes from.
>
> > I'd say these days it is *less* about style than in years past because
> > today most but certainly not all artists are at least writing and
> > performing their own music. If a singer using the work of others gets
> > famous, then she will usually try writing and performing her own work
> > - which is sometimes her downfall.
>
> > To me Britney Spears and The Hanson Brothers are not much different
> > than Frankie Avalon or Leif Garret.
>
> No, you're right, they aren't. But to me Avalon is symbolic of the
> great chasm between the real rock & roll of the mid-fifties and the
> guitar-based bands of the early-to-mid sixties. Those folks (Avalon,
> Fabian, Pat Boone, etc.) were basically treading water creativity-wise
> until the next wave of real bands hit.
>
> Musical innovation simply doesn't come from that direction, generally.
> That model produces pablum, for the most part. It may be enough to
> satisfy the great masses, but that doesn't mean that musicians should
> sit still for it.
>
> I'm not saying it's worse than it's ever been; I'm saying it's as bad as
> it's been in past bad times. And I'm waiting for the pendulum to swing
> back.
>
> Maybe you had to be around back then and be tuned into the music scene
> to appreciate the excitement associated with the advances in rock during
> the 60s and the degree to which it was driven by musicians.
>"Greatest American Band" was a step in the right direction, but it was a ba=
by step
Another thing about American Band was they gave it a lousy time slot.
They aired it on Friday nights, which is where shows go to die. The
younger crowd is usually out on Friday night. So I don't know if this
means they had no faith in it or not, but it wasn't really given an
opportunity to pull in really big ratings. American Idol was the US
version of the British show (Pop Idol, I think?), which was very big
over there, so there was precedence for its success.
Normally, I would snip the rest of your post, but regarding your
comments on image and innovation as stated below, I couldn't have said
it better:
> Sure, image has always been a part of the mix, but there was a lot more
> to it than that. The Beatles progressed beyond that initial cutie-pie
> stage because they had something that their competition didn't::
> creativity. You think that music would have progressed to the extent it=
> did in the sixties if all we had to listen to were studio-hired cutie
> pies singing songs backed written by label employees and backed by
> studio musicians? Jim, this isn't where the great revolutions and
> evolutions in music comes from.
>
> > I'd say these days it is *less* about style than in years past because
> > today most but certainly not all artists are at least writing and
> > performing their own music. If a singer using the work of others gets
> > famous, then she will usually try writing and performing her own work
> > - which is sometimes her downfall.
>
> > To me Britney Spears and The Hanson Brothers are not much different
> > than Frankie Avalon or Leif Garret.
>
> No, you're right, they aren't. But to me Avalon is symbolic of the
> great chasm between the real rock & roll of the mid-fifties and the
> guitar-based bands of the early-to-mid sixties. Those folks (Avalon,
> Fabian, Pat Boone, etc.) were basically treading water creativity-wise
> until the next wave of real bands hit.
>
> Musical innovation simply doesn't come from that direction, generally.
> That model produces pablum, for the most part. It may be enough to
> satisfy the great masses, but that doesn't mean that musicians should
> sit still for it.
>
> I'm not saying it's worse than it's ever been; I'm saying it's as bad as
> it's been in past bad times. And I'm waiting for the pendulum to swing
> back.
>
> Maybe you had to be around back then and be tuned into the music scene
> to appreciate the excitement associated with the advances in rock during
> the 60s and the degree to which it was driven by musicians.
Re: American Idol
RichL wrote:
> Maybe you had to be around back then and be tuned into the music scene
> to appreciate the excitement associated with the advances in rock
> during the 60s and the degree to which it was driven by musicians.
I don't think anyone is claiming that mediocrity and corporate control are
new, that AI brought them to the music business, there were plenty of
unimaginative record company execs back in the 60s too. But somehow the
music rose above that, the rules went out the window and the real
songwriters found an audience that didn't care if June rhymed with Spoon and
how cute the singer was. That ain't gonna happen on AI, they sing what
they're told to sing (and that won't be original numbers) and with rare
exceptions they're photogenic. Yeah, it's just a TV show, but it's also
another brick in the wall. Jim figures it's harmless, maybe he's right, but
I'm sure glad Simon Cowell wasn't around to fuck up music in Britain back in
the early 60s.
RichL wrote:
> Maybe you had to be around back then and be tuned into the music scene
> to appreciate the excitement associated with the advances in rock
> during the 60s and the degree to which it was driven by musicians.
I don't think anyone is claiming that mediocrity and corporate control are
new, that AI brought them to the music business, there were plenty of
unimaginative record company execs back in the 60s too. But somehow the
music rose above that, the rules went out the window and the real
songwriters found an audience that didn't care if June rhymed with Spoon and
how cute the singer was. That ain't gonna happen on AI, they sing what
they're told to sing (and that won't be original numbers) and with rare
exceptions they're photogenic. Yeah, it's just a TV show, but it's also
another brick in the wall. Jim figures it's harmless, maybe he's right, but
I'm sure glad Simon Cowell wasn't around to fuck up music in Britain back in
the early 60s.
Re: American Idol
"DGDevin" <dgdevin@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:yLednQdv9aZKQrbVnZ2dnUVZ_v3inZ2d@earthlink . com ...
> RichL wrote:
>
>
>> Maybe you had to be around back then and be tuned into the music scene
>> to appreciate the excitement associated with the advances in rock
>> during the 60s and the degree to which it was driven by musicians.
>
> I don't think anyone is claiming that mediocrity and corporate control are
> new, that AI brought them to the music business, there were plenty of
> unimaginative record company execs back in the 60s too. But somehow the
> music rose above that, the rules went out the window and the real
> songwriters found an audience that didn't care if June rhymed with Spoon
> and how cute the singer was. That ain't gonna happen on AI, they sing
> what they're told to sing (and that won't be original numbers) and with
> rare exceptions they're photogenic. Yeah, it's just a TV show, but it's
> also another brick in the wall. Jim figures it's harmless, maybe he's
> right, but I'm sure glad Simon Cowell wasn't around to fuck up music in
> Britain back in the early 60s.
>
Over the several years it's been on I've seen a few episodes of that silly
show and I've got to disagree about Simon. Sure he plays a good part at
being an ass but I've found that I generally agree with his evaulations. He
doesn't just say that stunk, he tells them why it stunk and I find I usually
agree with him.
Gerry
>
"DGDevin" <dgdevin@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:yLednQdv9aZKQrbVnZ2dnUVZ_v3inZ2d@earthlink . com ...
> RichL wrote:
>
>
>> Maybe you had to be around back then and be tuned into the music scene
>> to appreciate the excitement associated with the advances in rock
>> during the 60s and the degree to which it was driven by musicians.
>
> I don't think anyone is claiming that mediocrity and corporate control are
> new, that AI brought them to the music business, there were plenty of
> unimaginative record company execs back in the 60s too. But somehow the
> music rose above that, the rules went out the window and the real
> songwriters found an audience that didn't care if June rhymed with Spoon
> and how cute the singer was. That ain't gonna happen on AI, they sing
> what they're told to sing (and that won't be original numbers) and with
> rare exceptions they're photogenic. Yeah, it's just a TV show, but it's
> also another brick in the wall. Jim figures it's harmless, maybe he's
> right, but I'm sure glad Simon Cowell wasn't around to fuck up music in
> Britain back in the early 60s.
>
Over the several years it's been on I've seen a few episodes of that silly
show and I've got to disagree about Simon. Sure he plays a good part at
being an ass but I've found that I generally agree with his evaulations. He
doesn't just say that stunk, he tells them why it stunk and I find I usually
agree with him.
Gerry
>
Re: American Idol
> If 2008 American Idol selected musicians in the mid '60s like they do today, the show would fail.
I don't know, Paul McCartney discovered Mary Hopkin because she was
singing on a weekly British talent show. She was 17 and "just" a
singer (didn't write her own songs), very much like a typical American
Idol contestant. Paul found the song "Those Were the Days" for her,
and coached her to "sing it like you mean it", again very much like
the mentors on American Idol.
I should point out I watch American Idol, by the way, just because I
find it an enjoyable TV show. So I do like it on one level, but then
on another level I dislike the influence it has on popular music.
> I'm pretty damned sure that if the Fab Four were the Fat Four with bad skin and crew cuts, I never would have heard of them.
Oh, I agree with you here. I did say that image was important, but I
still stand by saying it is more important today than it was in the
60s and 70s. As a said, a matter of degree.
> If 2008 American Idol selected musicians in the mid '60s like they do today, the show would fail.
I don't know, Paul McCartney discovered Mary Hopkin because she was
singing on a weekly British talent show. She was 17 and "just" a
singer (didn't write her own songs), very much like a typical American
Idol contestant. Paul found the song "Those Were the Days" for her,
and coached her to "sing it like you mean it", again very much like
the mentors on American Idol.
I should point out I watch American Idol, by the way, just because I
find it an enjoyable TV show. So I do like it on one level, but then
on another level I dislike the influence it has on popular music.
> I'm pretty damned sure that if the Fab Four were the Fat Four with bad skin and crew cuts, I never would have heard of them.
Oh, I agree with you here. I did say that image was important, but I
still stand by saying it is more important today than it was in the
60s and 70s. As a said, a matter of degree.
Re: American Idol
On May 12, 4:07=EF=BF=BDpm, "DGDevin" <dgde...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Brian Running wrote:
>
> An interviewer asked Simon Cowell awhile back how he felt being labelled t=
he
> antichrist of music by some Brit music magazine, he just sneered and
> shrugged it off. =EF=BF=BDThe 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. =EF=BF=BDSomebody once pointed out that if AI had been around in the e=
arly 60s
> and Bob Dylan had tried out for the show he wouldn't have made it past the=
> screening audition. =EF=BF=BDAI isn't about good music, it's about *market=
able*
> music, and marketing over art is a big part of what has helped put the
> industry into such a deep hole.
American Idol is not a talent contest - it is a television show. The
goal isn't to find talent; it's to draw in viewers (ratings) so they
can sell advertising at inflated rates and turn a profit - same as any
other show.
The "first round" of the auditions with the three judges is actually
the fifth round. Screeners weed out the boring people (but not the
untalented) in the unseen first four rounds to put as many people who
might make interesting television in front of the cameras and the
three famous judges, which is why a flamboyant guy dressed as the
Statue of Liberty makes it to the judges while a shy person with a
great voice doesn't.
On May 12, 4:07=EF=BF=BDpm, "DGDevin" <dgde...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Brian Running wrote:
>
> An interviewer asked Simon Cowell awhile back how he felt being labelled t=
he
> antichrist of music by some Brit music magazine, he just sneered and
> shrugged it off. =EF=BF=BDThe 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. =EF=BF=BDSomebody once pointed out that if AI had been around in the e=
arly 60s
> and Bob Dylan had tried out for the show he wouldn't have made it past the=
> screening audition. =EF=BF=BDAI isn't about good music, it's about *market=
able*
> music, and marketing over art is a big part of what has helped put the
> industry into such a deep hole.
American Idol is not a talent contest - it is a television show. The
goal isn't to find talent; it's to draw in viewers (ratings) so they
can sell advertising at inflated rates and turn a profit - same as any
other show.
The "first round" of the auditions with the three judges is actually
the fifth round. Screeners weed out the boring people (but not the
untalented) in the unseen first four rounds to put as many people who
might make interesting television in front of the cameras and the
three famous judges, which is why a flamboyant guy dressed as the
Statue of Liberty makes it to the judges while a shy person with a
great voice doesn't.
Re: American Idol
John (Eryn Shewell Band) wrote:
> American Idol is not a talent contest - it is a television show. The
> goal isn't to find talent; it's to draw in viewers (ratings) so they
> can sell advertising at inflated rates and turn a profit - same as any
> other show.
You're overlooking that AI is just part of Simon Cowell's business empire.
AI winners go on to sell CDs and concert tickets from which Cowell makes a
fat profit, the show is just part of his gig.
John (Eryn Shewell Band) wrote:
> American Idol is not a talent contest - it is a television show. The
> goal isn't to find talent; it's to draw in viewers (ratings) so they
> can sell advertising at inflated rates and turn a profit - same as any
> other show.
You're overlooking that AI is just part of Simon Cowell's business empire.
AI winners go on to sell CDs and concert tickets from which Cowell makes a
fat profit, the show is just part of his gig.
Re: American Idol
"Brian Running" <brunning@XXameritechXX . net > wrote in message
news:BIYVj.305$qH4.289@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc . com ...
>> Maybe a bit off topic, sorry for that - but jesus this program (American
>> idol) is bloody awful... Do they not have any proper sound crew or have
>> auditions to clear out the debris beforehand??
>
> You mean you actually watched it? Larry, Larry, Larry...
>
> "Bloody awful" doesn't even begin to convey the true quality of it.
> Catastrophic, maybe. "Cynical joke being pulled off at the gullible
> viewing public's expense" is close, too, I think. "More predictable
> garbage from Rupert Murdoch and Company" kinda gets at it. How 'bout "You
> spend time watching the Fox Network and you get what you deserve"?
It's pretty silly to start in on the "news" networks so I'm going to let
that go here. I really just wanted to say that I heard they are bringing
back "the Gong show" yesterday. For those of you old enough to remember,
that was a "talent" show that was actually amusing.
Gerry
"Brian Running" <brunning@XXameritechXX . net > wrote in message
news:BIYVj.305$qH4.289@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc . com ...
>> 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"?
It's pretty silly to start in on the "news" networks so I'm going to let
that go here. I really just wanted to say that I heard they are bringing
back "the Gong show" yesterday. For those of you old enough to remember,
that was a "talent" show that was actually amusing.
Gerry
Re: American Idol
> It's pretty silly to start in on the "news" networks so I'm going to let
> that go here.
I don't think anyone did bring up the "news" networks, did they?
I really just wanted to say that I heard they are bringing
> back "the Gong show" yesterday. For those of you old enough to remember,
> that was a "talent" show that was actually amusing.
For about ten minutes. At least it didn't take itself seriously.
> It's pretty silly to start in on the "news" networks so I'm going to let
> that go here.
I don't think anyone did bring up the "news" networks, did they?
I really just wanted to say that I heard they are bringing
> back "the Gong show" yesterday. For those of you old enough to remember,
> that was a "talent" show that was actually amusing.
For about ten minutes. At least it didn't take itself seriously.
