American Idol 2: And for my Next Trick I will pull a Rabbit Out of My Hat.

CONCEPT

Here's the original post.

Pambdelurion and I had a lengthy discussion on the subject here.

And here is his most recent comment in its entirety, because it is well thought out, and doesn't deserve to languish at the bottom of a comment thread:

---

PAMBDELURION says:

All right, I get you--and again, sorry for being so snarky before--I will try to give a more substantative response to your post, because I do disagree with it pretty strongly. By far my largest problem with your stance is the way you phrase the question of whether American Idol represents a positive force in pop music. I feel that this is putting the show in far too narrow a context. To properly evaluate the merits of American Idol, I would argue that you have to ask whether it represents a positive force in pop culture as a whole. Because while it is certainly designed to affect the music industry, American Idol is first and foremost a television show and show be analyzed as such. And looking at things from a television perspective, I would say that overwhelmingly American Idol is a negative influence on pop culture. Because together with Survivor, American Idol forms the vanguard of that blight on the modern television landscape: the reality show. Now, I'm not saying, blanket statement, that each reality show is, on its own, "bad." But if we're talking about positive/negative effects on pop culture, we must look beyond individual merit and examine larger-scale effects. And the effect of American Idol and other successful reality shows was in essence to put a stop to creative, high-quality television in the US for nearly a decade. Reality shows are almost unbelievably profitable: they may look expensive when they're doling out million dollar prizes to the winner, but this is a tiny drop in the bucket compared to what is usually required of a studio in paying actors, building sets, etc., etc. In a reality show, you put in a relatively small initial investment, get some regular folk like y'all at home up on the screen, and sit back while the profits roll in. Because of this, well-written shows with name actors and high production values simply could not compete, and the networks hurled increasingly wacky reality premises at us year after year. Happily, that era of television is nearly at an end. But the only reason it did end was because of shifting means of profitability linked to advances in technology, not public renunciation of reality show shoddiness. Namely, studios execs realized that creating glossy, nicely put-together series with complex scripts and story arcs would not only keep viewers coming back week after week, but also get them to buy DVD season box sets and download episodes onto their iPod. Reality shows, lacking real rewatchability, were not eligible for these "double dip" purchasings, and as such no longer completely dominate the television. But like I said, there were years worth of promising shows jettisoned because of the profit shadow of American Idol and its ilk.

In considering American Idol as a TV show, I come to different conclusions than you do regarding the nature of the chosen contestants. You note surprise "at this shows circumspection in choosing a contestants with a wide range of styles, experiences, backgrounds, physiques, and abilities." What I'm reading is that if American Idol is as musically shallow as critics would argue, we ought to see nothing but a selection of pretty boys and vapid bimbos of the Britney-mold coming up to the top. Instead, we have the more interesting likes of Mandisa and Taylor Hicks. I interpret this with a much greater cynicism towards the American public than you do. These people, or perhaps they might be better termed characters, are retained specifically because they are interesting in a TV context, not because of the public's circumspect musical tastes. If the show was nothing but shallow starlets, Joe American would rapidly grow tired of it, but things are kept fresh by having a wide array of colorful characters. As I will argue later, American Idol's effect on the musical landscape is largely insignificant--but it is very important to television viewers. I would say the vast majority of people watching and voting for American Idol have no intention of ever buying an album produced by the winner of the show, and even less vote specifically because they want the opportunity to. They vote to keep their favorite TV characters on the air. The musical ramifications of this are only secondary.

But let's step back a moment and look at American Idol solely in the context on which you originally posted: the face of modern American pop music. In this regard, I don't think American Idol is a positive force, but I also wouldn't call it negative. Rather, I would say it is irrelevant. Assuming that the process behind American Idol is significantly different than the usual "closed doors" process used to manufacture stars, it's still only one person a year. For everyone else, the process is the same as it ever was--and I see no indication that the success of American Idol has done anything to change that. Talented, groundbreaking musicians still claw their way up from local clubs, and major record companies still manufacture instant celebs to suit changing demographics. The winners of American Idol occupy an uncomfortable middle ground, and end up with the perks of neither. Sure, American Idol winners usually have a hit or two fresh out of the box, but has any of them ever done something that could be musically described as "groundbreaking"? And on the other hand, has any of them ever had the superstar success of what I believe you are pegging as the worst offenders in recent "manufactured" superstar history, the boy bands? Ask any random person on the street to sing the number one song of an American Idol winner, then ask them to sing a hit by Backstreet Boys or N'Sync. I would wager that replies would tend strongly towards the latter. I know, it might sound crazy, but it ain't no lie, chicka-bye-bye-bye. Bye bye bye! Honestly, the only post-American Idol work by former contestants that really sticks in my head is the abysmal Kelly Clarkson-Justin Guarini summer beach movie From Justin to Kelly. Not exactly a noble legacy for American pop music. And because of their limited success in the actual music industry rather than as television characters, American Idol itself, for all its (either well-meaning or insidiously, corporately-manipulated, you decide) populism, can have little discernable influence on the pop music scene in general.

I can't help but be a hater 'cause I got no other way to be.

---

MY present response:

1) Re: "Sorry for being so snarky."
No need to apologize. I was a little confused, but greatly enlightened.

2) Re: I should evaluate Idol as a television show.
I will, but for the record I don't think I need to in the way you describe. There is no reason why something could not have a positive effect on the music industry and a negative effect on television programming, and for that matter why I cannot consider them independently. I won't go into examples now, but if you like there are plenty.

But that aside, I don't think your attack on Idol from the POV of television is coherent.

First, you attack it as a reality show. Strictly speaking, it is not. In both structure and presentation it is much closer to American Bandstand (1952 - 1989) and Showtime at the Apollo (1987 to present). Both used the device of bringing groups out and subjecting them to popular approval/disapproval and both launched careers in pop music. Both required minimum overhead... star-power would have been the greatest expense, presumably Dick Clark for Bandstand and the Apollo in Harlem for Showtime. In fact, Showtime even used the same serial schedule as Idol, with a "grand prize" being awarded to one act each year. I'm baiting you a little here, because I think you'll be reluctant to attack either of these shows as crappy TV.

But suppose I give you that Idol is a reality show. After all, the thing is fairly bundled with similar "contest shows" like Skating with the Stars, So You Think You Can Dance, and Bagpiping with the Best of Them. While I don't know that either of us are ready to prove that these shows are marketed to the same people as Survivor, Big Brother, and so on, it seems likely.

Let's go with that, then.

You'll say that "the effect of American Idol and other successful reality shows was in essence to put a stop to creative, high-quality television in the US for nearly a decade." I don't think so. If reality shows are put on the air simply because of low overhead, we ought expect to see a more random spread of ratings vs. other kinds of shows. In other words, if they are without merit to a viewing audience, their ratings will not be particularly impressive, inasmuch as they generate a profit even with low ratings. People would choose to watch other shows, dramas, the news, etc., but reality TV would remain profitable.

This spread has not been the case, however. Many reality shows get among the highest ratings on television. Which means that there's a very large niche they're filling for the viewing audience that other programming is not. Personally, I would say this is true drama. As manipulative as it may be (something else Idol has in common with reality TV) the shows are good at generating drama. If other programming was doing this, if the writing and acting was really so superior, it ought to be able to compete, right?

In truth, it has. Good new dramas like House and Monk and Lost, and even some lousy ones like Grey's Anatomy have flourished in the last decade. Everybody Loves Raymond and Frasier are doing fine in syndication. On the one hand, this does have a lot to do with DVD sales, as you mentioned. On the other hand, I think that the DVDs for American Idol have been doing pretty well. So, there's that.

Regardless of cause-and-effect, the brunt of the reality TV bite is mostly borne by already washed-up shows like The O.C. (which I once loved) that have had shitty writing. Are you really that upset to see The O.C. go? They're dying, and frankly they deserve to.

But the other thing that is happening that you half-acknowledge is that reality TV is on the wane. And I think there is also some meaning in the seeming contradiction that while some "reality" formatted shows that have done very well in the past are faltering, Idol is still the highest-rated show on television after dix years. DVD sales notwithstanding, if Survivor and co. were pulling higher ratings, their future would be more certain. Survivor is gimmicky and it's languishing. Fear Factor was cheap and pointless, so the same. Idol consistently is dramatic and catchy, full of gossip and slander and enticing flaws (not the dull kind), and on top of that the diverse and interesting, and often surprisingly unusual, music that I mentioned before. And, for all that, it's not fundamentally gimmicky. It's a search for the musician America wants... not a lot of contortions in that premise.

We may even be on the edge of a more discriminating era in reality TV.

Now to the music, and then I will go to bed.

3) Re: Evaluating American Idol as music.

You write with regard to the diversity of successful performers that "these people, or perhaps they might be better termed characters, are retained specifically because they are interesting in a TV context, not because of the public's circumspect musical tastes." You may be right as far as the judges' decisions go. But it's a fact that all of the performers selected can ultimately well. From there, it's a much more significant fact that some of the more "unexpected" performers do very very well in the voting stage of the program. Mandisa was on for quite awhile last year. Rubin Studdard won the second season. Taylor Hicks won last year.

If as you say the production's calculation for drama overwhelmingly directed these choices, then it would make sense for such performers to make it midway through the season with the judges support then to be voted off by an impatient and intolerant public. I think the truth is only slightly different. The public is as circumspect and engaged as I claim, and the producers wisely recognize that fact. It's the only way to account both for the fact that the performers are selected in the first place, and then go on to say on through the second half. You say that "they vote to keep their favorite TV characters on the air. The musical ramifications of this are only secondary." And yet when a lovable character sucks it big time (like the waifish Buddy Holly wannabe last year) they're promptly voted off. Customer loyalty only works as long as their singing does.

Finally, You also say that "the vast majority of people watching and voting for American Idol have no intention of ever buying an album produced by the winner of the show," but nine albums produced by involved performers have gone platinum and five have gone gold.

...

(I'll skip the part now where I explain why the show has an impact on the musical landscape. Pop being pop, all that gold and platinum has to stand for something, right? If it doesn't, it's not pop. Period.)

...

Not all of these albums, for that matter, which were released by actual winners ("it's still only one person a year")... the majority were released by people between the runner-up and the sixth place spot.

My last point, then, is in response to the problem of none of these stars having done anything "groundbreaking." It's been between one and five years for each of these performers. Were people immediately blown away by Prince? Would you call Teena Marie a flop? And dude, Stevie Nicks was just weird until she met up with Fleetwood Mac.

So give them a little time...

---

No hate here... I do understand and respect your point of view.

But I still think I'm right. I think that twenty years from now, American Idol will have been a force comparable in magnitude, if not style, to Sub-Pop, CBGB's, The Ed Sullivan Show, and all that other stuff. :)

END OF POST.