Astrojanitor Posted January 31, 2010 Posted January 31, 2010 I dunno...after reading this article I'm boycotting Idol from here on out. Link That's no real surprise. It is, after all, just a television show. Last year I was living in Oklahoma and I remember the Fox evening news being concerned a gay man might be voted American Idol...as if the the show actually votes for the idol of America. It's a goofy stupid show that should not be taken seriously (have you heard an American Idol cds? yikes). But the show is a beautiful trade off if you have a football hating lady. I watch American Idol with her and she watches football with me. Everyone wins and I get to hear a metrosexual British man tell people they suck.
ajzepp Posted February 1, 2010 Posted February 1, 2010 I dunno...after reading this article I'm boycotting Idol from here on out. Link That's one of the dumbest articles I've ever read. People quit jobs, pack up a bag, sleep in their car, and travel to hollywood all the time to try and become the next star. They're lucky to get an audition for something at all, let alone have the chance to sing or whatever. When they do, they're often sized up and given the one-over in a matter of a few minutes and then shown the door. That's how show business is. It's never meant to be "fair"...life isn't fair. There are tons and tons of people who can sing. The show is not looking for that, so anyone who presents themselves as some average guy or girl who can happen to sing well is likely going to be told "thanks, but no thanks". The show is looking for INTERESTING people who are talented enough to create a fan base, draw viewers, and inspire people to pick up a phone and/or tune in each week. The fact that the father says something as dumb as, "People should watch this show for what it is. It's not a search for the best singer in America. It's a way to make money" just goes to show you how clueless these people are. Of COURSE it's all about money! How can a grown adult be naive to that fact? I don't get it.
GoodBye Posted February 1, 2010 Posted February 1, 2010 That's one of the dumbest articles I've ever read. People quit jobs, pack up a bag, sleep in their car, and travel to hollywood all the time to try and become the next star. They're lucky to get an audition for something at all, let alone have the chance to sing or whatever. When they do, they're often sized up and given the one-over in a matter of a few minutes and then shown the door. That's how show business is. It's never meant to be "fair"...life isn't fair. There are tons and tons of people who can sing. The show is not looking for that, so anyone who presents themselves as some average guy or girl who can happen to sing well is likely going to be told "thanks, but no thanks". The show is looking for INTERESTING people who are talented enough to create a fan base, draw viewers, and inspire people to pick up a phone and/or tune in each week. The fact that the father says something as dumb as, "People should watch this show for what it is. It's not a search for the best singer in America. It's a way to make money" just goes to show you how clueless these people are. Of COURSE it's all about money! How can a grown adult be naive to that fact? I don't get it. But the show doesn't portray that. I think that's what the article was trying to point out. They glam it up and make it look like they are looking for actual singers. But instead all they want is someone who can just do a little acting.
Astrojanitor Posted February 1, 2010 Posted February 1, 2010 But the show doesn't portray that. I think that's what the article was trying to point out. They glam it up and make it look like they are looking for actual singers. But instead all they want is someone who can just do a little acting. They are not looking for singers, they are looking for pop stars. the purpose of the show is to build commodities. who can be sold to the most people? American Idol has exactly zero interest in signing radiohead. No one is tuning in looking for art. It's naive to think the celebrity judges get to look at anyone but the decent and/or crazy. But that's life. My buddy's band once played a showcase for Relapse Records. The Relapse guys were blown away by the music, but didn't sign them since they didn't look metal enough. Couldn't sell the band as dudes outside of the music they made. And this from an independent metal label out of Philly. Show business is concerned with product, not art.
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 1, 2010 Posted February 1, 2010 Ya... Without Simon, who would have ripped on Scott Brown's daughter 4 years ago? Massachusetts Sen.-elect Scott Brown wants "American Idol" to give his daughter Ayla another shot -- even while agreeing with judge Simon Cowell's nasty critique of her. Ayla Brown, 21, was among the show's final 16 in 2006, and narrowly missed the final round. The songbird suffered Cowell's harsh assessment that she was robotic. "Even though he was kind of harsh, what he says . . . was right," Scott Brown told ABC's "This Week." Seems he wants his daughter to have a mulligan, with Simon out of the picture, things may be different this time around.
GoodBye Posted February 1, 2010 Posted February 1, 2010 They are not looking for singers, they are looking for pop stars. the purpose of the show is to build commodities. who can be sold to the most people? American Idol has exactly zero interest in signing radiohead. No one is tuning in looking for art. It's naive to think the celebrity judges get to look at anyone but the decent and/or crazy. But that's life. My buddy's band once played a showcase for Relapse Records. The Relapse guys were blown away by the music, but didn't sign them since they didn't look metal enough. Couldn't sell the band as dudes outside of the music they made. And this from an independent metal label out of Philly. Show business is concerned with product, not art. Yes, I know all of this but most of the viewers, who are mostly young kids with dreams, that do not know all that. Why glam it up and get their hopes up for something that is false? Just show the young kids how it really is.
Astrojanitor Posted February 1, 2010 Posted February 1, 2010 Yes, I know all of this but most of the viewers, who are mostly young kids with dreams, that do not know all that. Why glam it up and get their hopes up for something that is false? Just show the young kids how it really is. Its not a documentary, it's rags-to-riches narratives under the guise of "reality." Besides, if it was showing the kids how it really is we would have a show about straight off the bus 22 year old girls from Iowa blowing a producer for a walk on role in Two and a Half Men.
GoodBye Posted February 1, 2010 Posted February 1, 2010 Its not a documentary, it's rags-to-riches narratives under the guise of "reality." True, true.
DC Tom Posted February 2, 2010 Posted February 2, 2010 Yes, I know all of this but most of the viewers, who are mostly young kids with dreams, that do not know all that. Why glam it up and get their hopes up for something that is false? Because it's TV. You don't think Monica and Rachel lived in a 3k square foot Manhattan apartment on a line chef's and waitress's salary, do you? Really, what surprised me most about that article was how stupid people are. You waiting for Ryan Seacrest in 100 degree heat is NOT the same as locking your dog in a car in 100 degree heat (you have a choice, the dog not so much). NOBODY on that show is singing for their lives. Yes, you are screened by drones before you get even a chance to torture the judges with your lack of talent - camera setups are too expensive to waste on ten thousand schmucks at a time. Yes, if you really suck you will be invited back to be mocked...that's kind of the point of the show early in the season. Hell, I've never even seen the show (just commercials), and I thought it was obvious. I'll tell you another secret, too - Simon's caustic comments aren't spontaneous, they're scripted. (Obviously, I mean the general "you", not you personally, Lana.) "They should be honest with their audience," Shelbi says. "'American Idol' is not what it appears to be." No ****, reality TV isn't real. What a shocker.
Just Jack Posted February 2, 2010 Posted February 2, 2010 Because it's TV. You don't think Monica and Rachel lived in a 3k square foot Manhattan apartment on a line chef's and waitress's salary, do you? It was mentioned in one episode that the apartment was rent controlled and actually in Monicas grandmothers name. Is it bad that I knew that without needing to look it up?
ajzepp Posted February 2, 2010 Posted February 2, 2010 It was mentioned in one episode that the apartment was rent controlled and actually in Monicas grandmothers name. Is it bad that I knew that without needing to look it up?
Recommended Posts