May 22, 2009
I'll say it again: "Idol" is not about music ...
I*'m not sure why people bother writing this crap any more, since it's pretty much self-evident, but the New York Times has, once again published a destruction of the American Idol final result. Predictably, this article complains that the winner was clearly not the best singer, that the song that will be the first single is dross and that this is consistent with the history of Idol. I'll dignify it only because it's so long since I wrote anything and this got up my nose.
American Idol, Australian Idol, UK Idol, Swaziland Idol ... whatever ... is about TELEVISION. It's about providing a gripping, human contest featuring an activity we can all identify with. It's about character and humanity ... music is just the backdrop. The winner, as in modern politics, is the contestant who can garner more support than the others. That's why non-threatening, likable characters go as far as they do: because they give no-one a reason to vote for the other guy ...
One day the media will get over the need to deconstruct this show as an exercise in music and let it be what it is. Ditto the winners, most of who make a splash and then go away.
I'm far more interested in the finalists, many of whom have interesting voices, interesting styles and interesting characters. they may not have the career highlights, but they've made much better music, IMHO ...Posted by Hughie at May 22, 2009 7:35 PM