Could American Idol have been saved (and if so, how?)

[niklj]

- Ban certain overdone song choices, like "I Have Nothing," "All by Myself," "And I Am Telling You I'm Not Going," "A Change Gonna Come," "I Don't Want to Miss a Thing," the Beatles, etc.

Regardless, I think the show would've gone down anyway, but it might've lasted two more years before it crashed. EDIT: Sorry, for some reason my computer won’t separate different paragraphs automatically.

 

Let's go one step further. They really need to splurge for a better and more relevant sound selection for the last year. No more Motown, no more Roy Orbison, but songs that the young ones with disposable income (i.e. those who buy iTunes singles) will add onto their playlist. Rock Star and The Voice both had/have great and varied song selections so you didn't get tired of hearing "Rockin' Robin'" or "Hero" for the billionth time.

 

Also, just delete theme nights period. Almost every time, the songs barely correlate to the theme anyway--sometimes it's just painful how they try to make the songs fit to the theme. "Movie Songs"="That song that was in the background in that one scene but it still counts because it was literally in a movie." Gah.

Edited May 26, 2015 by niklj

[coconspirator]

I'm of the mindset that the only way Idol could have "been saved" (meaning, presumably, to remain on top of the ratings despite being almost 15 years old) is for nothing in the world or TV landscape to change around it. Yes there were mistakes with judges (and casts that were worse some years than others), but the fact is a 15 year old show is going to lose its lusture as people's interests change. Competition, market saturation, broad changes in viewing habits, etc, will wear any show down. So no, it couldn't be saved. No more than any other TV show that lasted many years and eventually fizzled out.

Edited May 26, 2015 by coconspirator

[Amy Beth]

I think one of Idol's biggest problems was that its core viewership aged in place.

Obviously, it lost the luster of being the biggest thing on TV. But even at its reduced audience levels, if every viewer was the same age as when they first started watching, the demo rating would be substantial. Unfortunately, a large chunk of viewers who were in the coveted 18-49 age group in 2002 or 2003 have aged out of the demo.

[Qoass]

For me, it's all about the contestants.  Give me Adam Lambert, Melinda Doolittle and Haley Reinhardt and I'll watch every week.  You can have a fifty page list of songs to choose from with or without themes but if the people who sing them have no personality, I'll pass.

[27bored]

I think Idol went downhill for three reasons:

 

1. Instruments: it's a good idea, in theory, for a music competition to allow instruments. But the downside is you get hit-or-miss guitar strummers who are swallowed up by the flashy production of the show. At times it seems like the entire show could've taken place in a coffeeshop, not in a huge auditorium in LA. Plus, it's good when you have people who can play instruments but also know how to perform. But there's a reason why singer-songwriter types are a dime a dozen. They're boring af and don't know how to work a stage.

 

 

2. Not letting the winner win. I honestly think Idol made a mistake during the Kris Allen/Adam Lambert season. Kris won, but if you looked at the media hype, it was all about Adam. I sort of get it to an extent -- Adam was a technically proficient singer and performer, he had a glam-rock facade, he was openly gay -- but...he didn't win. But it seemed like they promoted Adam to the broader entertainment industry, he was on the covers of magazines, they put money into his album (his album had writing credits by Pink and Lady Gaga, among other hitmakers), and they actually promoted him. They made Kris seem like an indie artist who was popular on the college circuit who had his latest album distributed through a major label. I think they lost a lot of people after that, for whatever reason. I don't know that Kris was ambitious enough to be a big star, or if he even wanted to be, but it would've been good for the integrity of the show if they would've tried to make him one. Making him seem like the spoiler to the true winner I think was a big mistake for the franchise.

 

3. Not promoting the winner after the season/tour. Who was the last, legit star that won AI? Scotty? His album went platinum, but he's a country artist, so that makes sense. I think Phillip Phillips did alright, but I don't think anyone considers him a star. I think they needed another star to keep the franchise going. But this might play into the singer-songwriter thing I mentioned.

[Kromm]

2. Not letting the winner win. I honestly think Idol made a mistake during the Kris Allen/Adam Lambert season. Kris won, but if you looked at the media hype, it was all about Adam. I sort of get it to an extent -- Adam was a technically proficient singer and performer, he had a glam-rock facade, he was openly gay -- but...he didn't win. But it seemed like they promoted Adam to the broader entertainment industry, he was on the covers of magazines, they put money into his album (his album had writing credits by Pink and Lady Gaga, among other hitmakers), and they actually promoted him. They made Kris seem like an indie artist who was popular on the college circuit who had his latest album distributed through a major label. I think they lost a lot of people after that, for whatever reason. I don't know that Kris was ambitious enough to be a big star, or if he even wanted to be, but it would've been good for the integrity of the show if they would've tried to make him one. Making him seem like the spoiler to the true winner I think was a big mistake for the franchise.

Not to defend this crappy show for everything, but I have to add a "huh?" for this point.

 

My recollection is that they didn't do anything with Lambert until well after Kris Allen's album release. And they don't magically wave a wand and pick (especially a year or two later) what magazines will want to cover someone, or what artists WANT to work with an ex-contestant years later. I mean it's no forgone conclusion that these things only happened because Idol pushed. But Lambert is talented enough, as well as the media having picked up on him enough on their own, for it to be just as likely that people came TO Lambert's management rather than the other way around.

 

Yes, if they're doing their job they can also line up collaborations and initial media coverage--and they probably should have done a FAR better job of that with Allen. But that logic isn't subtractive. If there was interest in Lambert from people were they supposed to ignore it?  That's just bad business. 

Edited January 1, 2016 by Kromm

[27bored]

Adam was on the cover of Rolling Stone and some other major magazine (maybe EW) within months of winning (likely before or during Kris' album being released). They heavily featured his first single "For Your Entertainment" in the promos for the next season. They got him a spot on the American Music Awards. They got him good collaborators for his album. They honed his image, they put money into his album, and they promoted his work. With Kris, they more or less released his album, he got the usual looks (GMA, Today Show, a tonight show maybe, maybe a high-profile sporting event singing the SSB) and that's about it. I'm sure the media took an interest in Adam, but that's usually where the business comes in. You tell Rolling Stone, we'll get Adam on the cover, but we want an article about Kris when his album comes out. By their season, AI wasn't the built-in promo that it was in earlier seasons, so the industry wasn't as invested in who won. Adam got some interest outside the show so they ran with it, but they didn't work to promote Kris Allen, the guy who won, and instead let the media make Adam the de facto winner. IMHO.

[Kromm]

Okay, but even if that's true the failure of Kris Allen--a mediocre winner if there ever was one--certainly didn't kill American Idol. You'd have to prove a real pattern of them favoring losers over winners for this to really be a cause of the whole franchise's demise.

 

Simply saying that they needed to back the winners better is a different statement entirely (although that's belied by the huge success of The Voice--a show that does as close to nothing to back their winner as possible).

[holly4755]

Nigel is gone. Has been for 2 years from what I reckon.

I think people in general are tired of these instant fame without the chops to back it up type shows. The Kardashians are to blame lol. Who knows.

Nigel made the show run on time, I will say that about him. Without him there always seemed to be time problems. 

about this instant fame thing,  they are on TV for 4 months, so the fame is not that instant. They are tested every week, most "seasoned" performers could not do that. very few of the people who appeared on idol were babes in the woods who ever performed before, They had to present their resume upon trying out. And the chops thing is applied more against the guys and the woman grads seemed to get away without that accusation - I guess because they were pure and virginal or something. 

 

Look, this is a reality show, which means almost nothing is real. A lot of the kidding around is scripted. The people who survive had performed locally for years. There were very few innocents there. Now, I forget where I saw it, but they are finally admitting some people were plants recruited by casting, Much like most Amazing racers and Survivors were cast out of Evil Will's bar and were aspiring actors.   Some were too obvious, like Pia, the supposed selected winner of her season. Or Michael, the guy who died last year.  But if you go back in time, you find that Katharine  McPhee's mother was friends with the idol coaches, much like Corey Clark, whose family was not only friends with one of the voice trainers, but toured with her singing back up to Barry Manilow.  Even 17 year old Mormon on season 2 was selected by the judges to go on, her father was friends with the producers. Most of the earlier performers sang in church in the south for decades, in the later decades a lot had a band they performed with. I think Church gave them better training. The ones who sang in church seemed to harmonize better and perform in group songs better, group songs got progressively worse as the show continued.  .Still with experience, many did have to learn how to work a large stage and TV cameras. 

 

I agree with other commenters here that when they went younger, with a lot of 16 and 17 years olds they did not get people who could survive as much as more mature performers who could work with little sleep and lots of stress. 

 

I think instruments could have worked if they limited the number of times people could perform with an instrument. It did seem that some people could not really both play piano and be aware of the cameras and that made them look distant, although I think the audience may not have been aware why they felt that way. 

 

Over the years, I think every tweak seemed to go the wrong way. A lot of those tweaks were suggested by fans. I do think putting on performers for other than pure talent brought on vote for the worse. I think that group won and pretty much damaged the show, which really was the shows own fault. I realize they want a mix of singers on it for reality reasons, you don't want the same type of people competing, but they should not have selected people who sounded like they needed auto tune, that seemed to happen more and more over the years. 

[MarkHB]

Nigel made the show run on time, I will say that about him. Without him there always seemed to be time problems. 

about this instant fame thing,  they are on TV for 4 months, so the fame is not that instant. They are tested every week, most "seasoned" performers could not do that. very few of the people who appeared on idol were babes in the woods who ever performed before, They had to present their resume upon trying out. And the chops thing is applied more against the guys and the woman grads seemed to get away without that accusation - I guess because they were pure and virginal or something. 

 

Look, this is a reality show, which means almost nothing is real. A lot of the kidding around is scripted. The people who survive had performed locally for years. There were very few innocents there. Now, I forget where I saw it, but they are finally admitting some people were plants recruited by casting, Much like most Amazing racers and Survivors were cast out of Evil Will's bar and were aspiring actors....

 

Over the years, I think every tweak seemed to go the wrong way. A lot of those tweaks were suggested by fans. I do think putting on performers for other than pure talent brought on vote for the worse. I think that group won and pretty much damaged the show, which really was the shows own fault. I realize they want a mix of singers on it for reality reasons, you don't want the same type of people competing, but they should not have selected people who sounded like they needed auto tune, that seemed to happen more and more over the years. 

 

Nigel did have a lot to do with the show running on time, but Ryan also has a large part to play in that (since he has to not only keep things moving but make it all look good for the audience).  He did much better the last couple of seasons, I'll admit, but some years didn't seem to have a single live show come in on time.

 

Evil Will's bar?  Who is Evil Will?  (I didn't start watching Idol until S5, so I don't get a lot of the early-years references.)

 

VFTW... became self-parody in its last few years (if it was ever anything but).  The first year they did it, S4, they stopped endorsing when it got down to Carrie, Bo, and a couple of others.  S5 they latched onto Taylor Hicks and rode him all the way to the end (and might well have been instrumental in his victory, as the show actually put up the vote differences at F3 and they were very, very close).  S6 they were probably responsible for the longevity of Sanjaya, who was also the first (AFAIK) victim of what I call "VFTW Disease," where the contestant goes off the rails chasing the hate-watching vote and gives up trying to impress the audience with any genuine talent.  After that, once the show got down to the last few contestants, if there was no longer anyone left who met their "worst" criteria they'd just latch onto the obvious winner (e.g., Scotty) so they could claim a win for themselves.

[holly4755]

Sorry, Evil Will Kirby is from Big Brother, he and his buddy Mike "Boogie" run a bar that a lot of reality programs use for casting with many of it's waiters and waitresses are models looking for acting jobs. I mean a lot of different reality programs used to cast from there. Not any of the singing shows though because you would need to be able to sing passably to be on those shows. 

 

I apologize for throwing in an unexplained reference from another show, but reality junkies probably all knew what I meant but not many real live normal people. 

 

 

 

[karenc3]

I think Idol went downhill for three reasons:

 

1. Instruments: it's a good idea, in theory, for a music competition to allow instruments. But the downside is you get hit-or-miss guitar strummers who are swallowed up by the flashy production of the show. At times it seems like the entire show could've taken place in a coffeeshop, not in a huge auditorium in LA. Plus, it's good when you have people who can play instruments but also know how to perform. But there's a reason why singer-songwriter types are a dime a dozen. They're boring af and don't know how to work a stage.

 

 

 

I think the real problem is they started casting less experienced contestants that didn't know how to work a stage. And not just the singer-songwriters. Very few had enough star quality, or at least not as much as those that had been successful in the past. 

[TheGreenKnight]

Okay, but even if that's true the failure of Kris Allen--a mediocre winner if there ever was one--

To the winners before him, I guess I would agree. But he's Elvis Presley in comparison to anyone who came after him. Candace and (begrudgingly) Caleb are the only ones that could sing better than him, but they're up there with Ruben and Taylor Hicks as the least marketable contestants to win this show.

 

Someone else mentioned age of the contestants, but I'm not sure that's true. Tastes will differ, but Jordin, David Archuleta, Diana Degarmo, etc. were all pretty young when they were on the show and they did fine dealing with the stress of performing. It's only a problem when they cast young people without talent that's the problem, but they cast many talentless people of all ages these last two seasons.

[MarkHB]

Sorry, Evil Will Kirby is from Big Brother, he and his buddy Mike "Boogie" run a bar that a lot of reality programs use for casting with many of it's waiters and waitresses are models looking for acting jobs. I mean a lot of different reality programs used to cast from there. Not any of the singing shows though because you would need to be able to sing passably to be on those shows. 

 

I apologize for throwing in an unexplained reference from another show, but reality junkies probably all knew what I meant but not many real live normal people. 

 

Thanks; I am aware of Will and Mike, but I don't automatically think of Will as "Evil" and had never heard of their bar.  (I pay little to no attention to not-on-the-air stuff for any of the reality shows I watch, and we didn't start watching BB until S8.)

[Kromm]

I think the real problem is they started casting less experienced contestants that didn't know how to work a stage. And not just the singer-songwriters. Very few had enough star quality, or at least not as much as those that had been successful in the past. 

Define "cast".

 

I mean did they really have any choice (other than ending the series even earlier than they did?). Between them and competing shows they'd chewed up and spat out all of the qualified people. Which in fact is why they started plumbing the depths of YouTube for people (and to be fair, those were often far from the worst candidates compared to a lot of the grade-D singers who'd simply been languishing performing in bars for years).

 

A lot of those were country performers too. I'll risk the wrath of The Country Nation by saying that another big part of the show's big downfall was Countrying everything. While those people were indeed the most commercially viable, and probably a (much) greater percentage of them went on to viable post-show careers than the non-country contestants, what also happened was a huge influx of Country wannabees that flooded the show. When they were good, they were good (well good enough for Country radio at least) but when they were bad they were REALLY bad.

 

The Voice has carried on this tradition, and is still a ratings smash, so I can't attribute too big a share of the Idol viewing decline to this, but I do think that what happened was a split in the Idol audience. Some country fans came on board (those who weren't there since the days of Carrie, or maybe even Pickler), but I think it just bored the hell out of the traditional viewers (who probably aren't watching The Voice now either, if that's the case). 

[Lonesome Rhodes]

One of the things that really hurt AI is the absolute crap that oasses for popular music.  AI was in a vice - how to be relevant and "young," but also entertaining?  So, the "music" on the show sucked.  When Uncle Nigel tried to incorporate great music with the special nights, he got skewered for being an old fogey.  

 

AI also refused to let Harry be Harry.  An overwhelmingly huge portion of each show is devoted to the jidges.  If none of them end up adding anything, there IS nothing.  It will be great fun for me to watch Simon's return to the U.S. audience on AGT.  This past year was very underwhelming and TPTB knew it.  

 

AI will never get past the season-long self-congratulations and fond memories this season.  Have the insulin handy, y'all.  You gonna need it.

[Kromm]

AI also refused to let Harry be Harry.  An overwhelmingly huge portion of each show is devoted to the jidges.  If none of them end up adding anything, there IS nothing.  It will be great fun for me to watch Simon's return to the U.S. audience on AGT.  This past year was very underwhelming and TPTB knew it.  

This happened far too late in the process to be a cause of the demise, although it certain was a mistake and didn't help. And really it's a trend on all of these shows (the worst I've seen isn't even on the US shows, but on the UK version of The X-Factor). Clearly I'm not speaking about "Harry" specifically but the whole tendency to give in to the clapbots and cheerbots in the live audience. So while you may be looking forward to Simon on AGT... his track record with this has gotten pretty bad the past few years on UK X-F.

[27bored]

Okay, but even if that's true the failure of Kris Allen--a mediocre winner if there ever was one--certainly didn't kill American Idol. You'd have to prove a real pattern of them favoring losers over winners for this to really be a cause of the whole franchise's demise.

 

Simply saying that they needed to back the winners better is a different statement entirely (although that's belied by the huge success of The Voice--a show that does as close to nothing to back their winner as possible).

 

Like TheGreenKnight said, Kris might pale in comparison to a lot of the talent they had prior to his season, but he's one of the better talents from his season forward. In fact, I'd say Kris represented a watershed moment for AI, and dare I say the culture altogether, in that he was one of the first artists who could take production-heavy pop songs and turn them into skeletal, acoustic dirges befitting of a singer-songwriter. These kinds of covers are all over the place now, and has even been done on Idol, but Kris kind of started it...or at least brought it to the forefront. Kris was one of the first contestants who wasn't TCO and wasn't the best singer of his season, but showed you can get far on AI by being an interesting artist. Sort of the forefather to JAX from last season.

 

But I think not letting Kris be the winner and let him have his victory lap of sorts played into the demise of the franchise overall. They sort of did it with Ruben and Clay back in S2, but that was during the height of AI's popularity, and Clay was legitimately popular with fans of the show. They didn't seem to let Clay become a star and undersell Ruben, though. They released their singles at the same time to "keep the competition going" as Uncle Nigel once said (I think it was him), but it didn't necessarily hurt Ruben. They also sort of did it with Taylor and Katharine in S5. Again, the show was very popular, but AI didn't care for Taylor, and Katharine was young and pretty. So they kind of let Katharine become a celebrity in her own right (she still does some singing, but she mostly acts now) whereas they just released Taylor's album, and then he got dropped when it did nothing, and that was it.

 

Someone else mentioned age of the contestants, but I'm not sure that's true. Tastes will differ, but Jordin, David Archuleta, Diana Degarmo, etc. were all pretty young when they were on the show and they did fine dealing with the stress of performing. It's only a problem when they cast young people without talent that's the problem, but they cast many talentless people of all ages these last two seasons.

 

Yeah, age isn't necessarily a factor. Jordin, Archie, and Diana DeGarmo were 16/17 when they auditioned, but all three were showbiz kids in their own right who had been on TV before. I know Jordin tried out for American Juniors or whatever, and David Archuleta had been on the new Star Search (there was even video of him singing for the cast of S1 at an airport or something like that). Not only were they pros by the time they auditioned, they could handle the hoary songs AI made them sing during their seasons. I remember when Archie sang "With You" by Chris Brown and people thought it looked and sounded awkward...not realizing he was about the same age as Chris Brown was when he recorded it. And let's not forget Scotty was all of 17 when he won, but he sounds like an 35 year old so it's easy to forget. And even Fantasia was about 18/19 when she tried out.

 

My question is: has AI ever fulfilled it's promise of finding a virtual unknown, like, some kid who just sings at church and maybe at their school talent show, who winds up winning and becoming a recording artist? It seems like they never really did:

 

Kelly Clarkson: tried out after moving home from LA after trying to be a star and recording demos

Ruben Studdard: had been formally trained in college, sang with his own band for years, recorded demos

Fantasia: sang in church her whole life, toured with her family's band as a child

Carrie Underwood: had a record deal at 14, sang at festivals and church and even at events in college

Taylor Hicks: journeyman musician who had recorded an album, played bars for years

Jordin Sparks: showbiz kid who sang all over the place, toured with CCM artist Michael W. Smith, won local singing contests

David Cook: had released a solo album prior to Idol, was a working musician for years playing bars/clubs

Kris Allen: was a professional musician prior to trying out, had been playing around for years, dropped out of college to music full-time

Lee DeWyze: had been signed to an indie label, released two albums, his band had been played on local radio, prior to auditioning

Scott McCreery: sang in several singing groups in high school, won a local singing contest, did shows for a local radio station

Phillip Phillips: had been playing for years with his band, won a local singing contest

Candice Glover: had tried twice before winning AI, sang at church and in school

Caleb Johnson: sang professionally with his band, recorded an album prior to winning

 

Looking at the list, it seems like the only two people who weren't more or less semi-pro is Scotty and Candice.

[Kromm]

My question is: has AI ever fulfilled it's promise of finding a virtual unknown, like, some kid who just sings at church and maybe at their school talent show, who winds up winning and becoming a recording artist? It seems like they never really did:

There may not be any such thing anymore, thanks to YouTube. Oh, there are people who put up YouTube videos that get virtually unseen, and a million different levels of quality, but remember we are talking about someone capable of winning the show. Anyone who'd be good enough to actually get to the live shows likely has that progression of increasingly popular YouTube videos, and then it often leading to local clubs booking them (although that often is dwarfed by the tens or hundreds of thousands of YouTube fans they may have).

[Qoass]

 

Nigel did have a lot to do with the show running on time, but Ryan also has a large part to play in that (since he has to not only keep things moving but make it all look good for the audience).

 

 

Slightly off topic, but I do want to give Seacrest props.  I never realized how difficult his job was until I saw Carson Daly try to do it.  Poor guy always looks like he's about to have a stroke when a Voice judge rambles on while the closing credits run.

[BogoGog24]

Slightly off topic, but I do want to give Seacrest props. I never realized how difficult his job was until I saw Carson Daly try to do it. Poor guy always looks like he's about to have a stroke when a Voice judge rambles on while the closing credits run.

An even worse example of hosting is Josh Groban when he hosted Rising Star. It is definitely not as easy as he makes it look, and especially when it is live as well.

[Guest]

Thanks; I am aware of Will and Mike, but I don't automatically think of Will as "Evil" and had never heard of their bar.  (I pay little to no attention to not-on-the-air stuff for any of the reality shows I watch, and we didn't start watching BB until S8.)

I've never heard Will referred to as evil (just Dick) and I see no evidence he was ever involved in any of Mike's failed nightclub investments, or that any shows would cast from their staff on a regular basis.  The state is full of mactors, why would they?  

[rereader2]

If you think about it, it is the least surprising outcome to end up with a disproportionate number of singer/songwriter winners, because the audience is watching this in their living rooms. Your living room is a lot closer to a coffee house than it is to an arena, after all, and a performer that seems at home in your living room is going to sound better on TV than one that is singing to the folks in the nosebleed seats.

[kathyk24]

I think AI should have gotten rid of the joke auditions a long time ago. IMO that's what makes the voice a better show even the singers who don't make the cut have some talent. I wonder how many good singers American Idol missed out on because they spent too much time on hopeless people.

[Kromm]

If you think about it, it is the least surprising outcome to end up with a disproportionate number of singer/songwriter winners, because the audience is watching this in their living rooms. Your living room is a lot closer to a coffee house than it is to an arena, after all, and a performer that seems at home in your living room is going to sound better on TV than one that is singing to the folks in the nosebleed seats.

But that contrasts with The Voice, the same kind of show seen in the same environment, where Diva singers and people with ridiculous if often insincere big glory notes get far all of the time.

[Ms Blue Jay]

I think American Idol could definitely have been saved.  First because "never say never" applies here.  How can one say that a show that changed so much from what made it popular in the beginning and then tanked, could not have possibly been saved?

 

- Project Runway (and all of its incarnations - All Stars! Junior! Whatever!), Survivor (30 seasons in), and the reality shows that I do not know about (Bachelor & Incarnations, any Food show and incarnations, Amazing Race)  are still going.  If Project Runway or Survivor ever gets cancelled, I will die.  Let me know if they're in danger.

- People will always be interested in singing and music.  Doesn't matter whether phones improve or technology changes.  Just like people will always be interested in movies and television.

- Appointment television still works if it's still captivating and high quality.   I don't know how long this will last.... how is Dancing with the Stars doing?   Maybe all those reality shows I mention in my first bulletpoint work better because we don't have to vote.  We have no power.  Does the audience vote for The Voice contestants? I know nothing about it. I  admit that the show does not interest me at all.

 

How could it have been saved?

 

You don't fix what isn't broken.  Jeff Probst and Heidi Klum for instance.  Simon Cowell is that person for AI.  I understand Simon Cowell left of his own volition, but I tried to read deeper about this stuff and apparently Simon Fuller wouldn't give him enough power/control?  That's a mistake.  Jeff and Heidi are executive producers from what I understand.  You pay the people who make the show.  He's what helped make it successful.  I watch sitcoms from the 2000s who make mention of Simon.  You keep him happy.  And I like Simon about a million times better than I like Jeff or Heidi and I think he held more value.

 

The three judges now are all nice.  It's kind of like 3 coherent Paulas.  Is that what the audience wants to see?  Harry's personality turns me off incredibly.  I don't know if I'm the only one.  But it does.  I happen to like Keith and J.Lo but it's totally a matter of taste so I get why others don't. Harry is no Simon.  Harry holds nothing of value IMO.  He always acts like he's going to say something of major value, then just doesn't.  In this last episode it seemed like the judges hardly JUDGED and basically said nothing.  Sorry, but I don't find it interesting to hear a bunch of contestants that I don't know yet, sing.  How are we going to learn about anything?  The contestants, whether they're good, why they're good or not?    It's like having a bunch of designers show a bunch of designs, without showing the background of how they were made, and then having nobody comment on them.  Is that captivating?

 

The joke auditions were always my favourite part of the show. I know that they are not popular here.  But what if they drew in ratings?  The sob stories, I absolutely hated.  But then sometimes I would fall for them.  What if they drew in ratings?  Again, you do not fix what isn't broken.  I hate that people get hurt on Survivor but it happens every season and the show creates conditions that allow for this to happen.  I hate *SOME* of the drama on Project Runway but it happens every season and the show creates conditions that ensure that it happens.

 

Reality shows are still popular.  But Idol kind of threw everything away that made it popular and mainstream in the first place.

 

The power voting was a good point made upthread.  I enjoy that point.  The contestants -- that's tougher for me.  Gotta think about that one.  I don't know who Kelly Clarkson was popular with or what conditions allowed her to win. Or if maybe she was just that f*cking good for instance.  Also, American Idol doesn't know how to market good talent.  Should people like Melinda Doolittle have fallen through the cracks?  Jennifer Hudson should not have.  I don't know much about the music industry in this deep of a way.  Again, Melinda was such a pop culture *thing* back then.  When you have those opportunities you absolutely have to capitalize on them.  Survivor has the same popular players come back again and again.  And I love it.

 

Maybe instead of the voting it has to be 3 or 4 very coherent and knowledgeable and SMART (Simon) people who make the decisions about the singers.  This is what Project Runway does, for instance.  Not that the designers necessarily make it big (though some do - Michael Costello who didn't win, Christian Siriano.)  BUT THE SHOW SURVIVES.  Teens like stuff that is quirky or flash in the pan.  That is not necessarily a bad thing, but for the music industry, maybe.  The conditions that allow Kelly, Carrie, Scotty, Adam to flourish -- you appreciate talent and you find them the right, marketable genre -- that needs to be in step with the parameters of the show.

Edited January 7, 2016 by Ms Blue Jay

[Nedsdag]

I'm one of those who believes that AI would not have been canceled had a show called Empire did not receive the blockbuster ratings AI used to get on FOX. That and the constant changes the producers continued to make on the show regarding the judges did not help ratings either. Candice's season to me was the beginning of the end when the producers saw what The Voice did with the celebrity judges. They didn't need Mariah Carey AND Nicki Minaj at the same time. By the time they went back to the three-judge panel, the damage had been done.

[truthaboutluv]

But I think not letting Kris be the winner and let him have his victory lap of sorts played into the demise of the franchise overall.

 

All these years later and the conspiracy theory about how poor Kris Allen was spurned by the Idol producers and managers still exist I see. So the show's demise didn't have anything to do with that disaster of Nicki Minaj and Mariah Carey on the judging panel, a series of bland, white boy strumming guitars winning, the completely uninteresting panel of J-Lo, Keith Urban (who I actually like) and Harry Connick Jr. (who I think is a douche) and well the fact that it's been on for years and people move on. No, it's that they screwed over Kris Allen during his reign and didn't allow him to have his victory lap. Okay then...

 

Few facts, yes, Adam had Lady Gaga and Pink and other big names as contributors for his debut album. However, none of these people were exactly compatible with Kris' sound. Meanwhile, Kris had writers and producers who were quite successful and in line with his own sound, like The Script and The Fray. Kris' debut single came out months before Adam's For Your Entertainment (which by the way bombed on radio) and went on to be a decent sized hit for him. The Entertainment Weekly cover Adam got that so many were salty about was confirmed to be EW's own decision. The show had nothing to do with that as the season was still airing when that happened, which is why they didn't have an interview with Adam himself. It was pretty much just an opinion piece because the contestants couldn't talk to the media during the season. 

 

Rolling Stone put Adam on their cover because they wanted to. What was his management supposed to say, "no, we'll pass because he didn't actually win the season." And he was on Oprah's show because she wanted him on her show, especially on the heels of his American Music Awards controversy (man that performance was a mess). Yes, an artist's management has to work to get these offers and opportunities for their artist but at the same time the magazine, talk show, etc. has to be interested. No artist's management can force a magazine or entertainment show to cover their artists if they don't see anything in it for them.

 

I watched all of Season 8 and much as I wasn't rooting for anyone (I didn't become a fan of Adam's until after the show with his post-show music. I loved his first album and all his albums to be honest), I knew Kris would win just based on the pattern of how people voted for Idol. It's kind of how I'm often really good at knowing who will win DWTS just based on the demographic that watches the show and how voting has gone in the past. 

 

That said, I knew post-show would be the real battle and I remember Simon saying once to Kris during the season that he didn't come across as a star and that would hurt him and he was right. Hollywood is a business - if magazines think they will get sales and hits off of covering an artist they will. It's not rocket science. So yeah, most of the media believed there was more interest in Adam and talked about him. Some fans seemed to believe Kris was owed some kind of success and attention just because he won the title and no, it doesn't work that way. 

 

And as for the show, as I said above, ultimately this is just a case of all things must come to an end. I'm sure the proliferation of music competition shows didn't help and especially The Voice's success in the last few years but 15 years is a really good run. And no matter what they can always lay claim to helping launch and discovering some really great talent who went on to do amazing things and have amazing careers. That's not too shabby.

 

Slightly off topic, but I do want to give Seacrest props.  I never realized how difficult his job was until I saw Carson Daly try to do it.  Poor guy always looks like he's about to have a stroke when a Voice judge rambles on while the closing credits run.

 

 

Carson is just one of the reasons I have no idea who The Voice has won multiple Emmys. My goodness he sucks. 

Edited January 7, 2016 by truthaboutluv

[Kromm]

I think American Idol could definitely have been saved.  First because "never say never" applies here.  How can one say that a show that changed so much from what made it popular in the beginning and then tanked, could not have possibly been saved?

The show doesn't have to have changed at all. Society can. That's the main reason I think it died. The second being it and similar shows drying up the talent pool somewhat too. But society, TV viewing behavior, how the networks act and react, how the music business itself has changed... those are all things that have little to do with the choices they make (or don't make on the show itself).

 

To me that says (despite me being the one who started this topic) that "saving" American Idol was always going to be an uphill battle. They could have made it more like The Voice... but note that a lot of the appeal of The Voice to many was that it wasn't American Idol. And so making American Idol into The Voice 2 probably would have backfired. It's entirely possible that OTHER changes to the show might have worked instead--but the one answer "leave it exactly the same" was never going to work (at the very least because with the judge changes it never COULD stay exactly the same, assuming it tried to). 

[Ms Blue Jay]

I understand your opinion but after I said that tiny portion you cut, I spent a huge amount of time trying to show that PR and Survivor kept the tried and true formula for 15-30 seasons and it's worked well for them, even though they are the victims of the same changes in viewing habits, society, and networks (although PR is cable).   One thing that makes Idol different from those two shows is that the technology regarding music has majorly changed too, which I get.  

Edited January 8, 2016 by Ms Blue Jay

[Kromm]

I understand your opinion but after I said that tiny portion you cut, I spent a huge amount of time trying to show that PR and Survivor kept the tried and true formula for 15-30 seasons and it's worked well for them, even though they are the victims of the same changes in viewing habits, society, and networks (although PR is cable).   

They're not victims of the same changes in society though. Sure they existed in the same society, but their position in that society differed.

 

Neither show depended on audience participation. They were (still are) passive viewing experiences in comparison to American Idol.  Other than the Survivor finale (where it doesn't count for much) they don't air live episodes. American Idol in it's heyday relied on racking up tons of live viewership, creating water-cooler moments discussed the next day, and was affected in a real progression by events happening in the real world while it was airing. Survivor, Project Runway, Top Chef... shows like that didn't have the same burden (or to be fair, the same ratings expectations--even Survivor on network TV always had a bit more "give" in it's ratings requirements). 

 

A show like Idol flourished on Buzz.  NO show gets that any more. The closest today are Dancing With The Stars (where their age of being able to create that is coming to an end the last few years, I'd argue) and The Voice (where people spend time talking about if Gwen Stefani and Blake Shelton are banging each other as much or more than they do about the performers themselves). And that was my point. Even with the addition of bigger stars like J. Lo, Idol wasn't really trying to make it about the judges. We can laud that in many ways--and as I said before if they had it likely would have just led to people accusing the show of copying The Voice anyway. Idol's time has passed because "Appointment Television" (of the live variety) barely exists anymore. Few people feel they "have to" turn on that TV to watch the show live... and yet the show's appeal (except during the audition phases) is dependent entirely on that being done.

[MarkHB]

Speaking of buzz, and to emphasize how dominant Idol was in its day, in early 2008 TV Guide ran a list of the 20 most-watched programs (total audience) in 2007.  Here's how I summarized that list on TWoP:

 

By sheer numbers, Number 1 was the Super Bowl. 2 and 3 were last year's AFC and NFC championship games. 4 was the Oscars. 7 was the Pats-Giants game last week (NOTE: that was the final game of the Patriots' 16-0 regular season). Then there are 2 more NFL playoff games and 2 editions of NFL on CBS.

 

And numbers 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, and 19 were all episodes of American Idol.

That would have been Idol Season 6.

[Snakelite]

After Cowell, there has not been a judge whose opinion really mattered all that much, to both the viewers and the contestants. You never really knew if he would like something or not. Love him or hate him, he added an element of suspense. I am not sure the power he had as a judge was any thing that could be easily duplicated. Even he wasn't able to transfer that to whatever that other singing competition show he did was called.

I also tuned in to see how the individual contestants would handle theme week. Perhaps it was unfair to the singers, but it brought drama and added an interesting element to the competition. I think so many country types changed the show in ways that were not necessarily positive. A spin-off "American Idol, Country-Style, might have been a better way to go. I would have watched that too had they done it abut the time McCreary came along. A missed opportunity for Fox.

[rereader2]

But that contrasts with The Voice, the same kind of show seen in the same environment, where Diva singers and people with ridiculous if often insincere big glory notes get far all of the time.

 

I wouldn't know, I couldn't stand watching more than 10 minutes of The Voice.

[MarkHB]

I once saw an article that laid out how the original judging panel covered the recording industry: Paula, the recording artist; Randy, the record producer; Simon, the record company executive who's trying to figure out how the artist will make money (the article didn't say it, but in that model the competition itself takes the place of the A&R rep).  Replacing Simon was always going to be hard because few of those guys are household names (Tommy Mottola, Clive Davis (shudder), L.A. Reid mainly since The X-Factor), and they essentially didn't try until they brought in the full-time mentors Jimmy and now Scott.

 

Alternate theory: the show should have brought back Brian.  :)

[Kromm]

I once saw an article that laid out how the original judging panel covered the recording industry: Paula, the recording artist; Randy, the record producer; Simon, the record company executive who's trying to figure out how the artist will make money (the article didn't say it, but in that model the competition itself takes the place of the A&R rep).  Replacing Simon was always going to be hard because few of those guys are household names (Tommy Mottola, Clive Davis (shudder), L.A. Reid mainly since The X-Factor), and they essentially didn't try until they brought in the full-time mentors Jimmy and now Scott.

 

Alternate theory: the show should have brought back Brian.  :)

IMO the original show didn't succeed because of some perfect judge synergy, or some level of music biz relevance. Two of them were irrelevant to the business at the time they were cast.  And their background knowledge of the business didn't really manifest on the show that well either.

 

It was a time and a place thing. America was ready for that kind of big event talent show--especially the water cooler live part. We are a society with deep populist roots, and that manifested in beliefs about how we could make ourselves into something, and grew a mythology via the show about the average viewer launching themselves into the good life via simply showing up at an audition, getting lucky somehow, and becoming famous.

 

That fascination with them being us of course took over our TV totally. Every other show on TV now is a reality show elevating supposedly "common" people to TV stardom. But 15 years ago this phenomenon was still in its infancy. A lot of people may not realize it, but even the tip of the spear, Survivor, had only been on the air for 2 seasons. There were prefaces to Idol of course--both is the UK but also here in the US--but shows like Popstars came off as very small time, and Star Search was very quaint and old fashioned in how it presented things. It wasn't a spectacle. 

 

What's happened since is that I think TV has been so flooded with projections of us, that Idol's effectiveness in that regard has been dulled. And we're less impressed with the spectacle of it, because there are other bigger ones around--and we're jaded now too. 

 

Of course none of this is as important to why Idol's days were numbered as the change in TV viewing habits. We can name other shows that have survived, of course, but the burden of their success wasn't as high a bar as Idol's. Nobody's been sitting there looking at Project Runway's numbers and expecting the moon from the show. And Survivor? I know it was used as an example of a continuing unchanging success story by a poster before, but... it's not. Go look at the ratings. It does actually continue to get decent demo scores and that's what advertisers (and thus networks) have decided is most important, so it survives (pun intended). In other words, it continues to succeed because the measuring stick was changed. But back in the day when Survivor and Idol ruled the roost totally, it was pure viewership numbers that determined that, and the 8 to 9 million viewers Survivor gets these days (on a GOOD season) is peanuts compared to what it used to get. The season 1 finale of Survivor got 51.69 million viewers. The numbers bounced all over the place, but for it's first ten seasons (which with some two per year deals meant "up till 2005") got over $20 million viewers just for run of the mill episodes. And Idol was in that same territory--never peaking quite as high as 51 million viewers, but the worm didn't fully turn until as recently as 2012 (when the bottom fell out of it's ratings--although note that still means numbers higher than most shows on broadcast TV). Because as much as I think people grew jaded and less impressed by the show, it's really the broadcast TV industry that's all of a sudden irrevocably changed in the past few years. Probably even a little further back than 2012 (I'd say 2009-2010), but Idol held out a little bit longer, and THEN the combination of judge changes, people being tired/not as impressed by the show, The Voice coming along and stealing a lot of it's thunder, etc. But mostly it's just because not as many people sit watching live TV anymore. Inevitably that's going to chip away at Dancing With the Stars, and even the current success of The Voice as well.

[marketdoctor]

 

A lot of those were country performers too. I'll risk the wrath of The Country Nation by saying that another big part of the show's big downfall was Countrying everything.

 

As a big fan of country music, I'd forgive you, except I think you're right.  Country music (and the other place this show goes, country pop) have a fairly specific sound.  That sound is stereotyped as the twang of a steel guitar, and it's broader than that--but if you don't like that sound, you're less likely to like country. 

 

It doesn't help that some of the successful finalists and winners have had big country hits (Carrie Underwood being the most obvious), and AI likes success.  (Someone at 19 Entertainment is sad they never got Taylor Swift.)  When you put music into a niche, you're inderectly telling people outside that niche that they're not going to like it--which is the opposite of what AI is trying to do.  There are country stars who can sing other things (Carrie Underwood again), but it's hard to find that.

 

They've also got a trap most long-running shows have:  you can have more of the same, or you can risk alienating your audience.  Both can hurt your ratings, and at the same time, your costs often keep going up.  The Original Judges probably wanted more money each year, and maybe Seacrest and the offscreen talent as well.  Costs going up only helps if your ratings follow.

 

I'll also point out they got too obsessed with the bad auditions--ratings held from Wednesday to Thursday against stiffer competition (Big Bang Theory), and on Wednesday they had more positive auditions.  That might be because they fixed one of the problems--the joke that someone can't sing gets old?  But as HCjr pointed out, they have a lot of singers of a type.  That type is suspiciously familiar--maybe it's easier for younger adults, especially women to sing country than rock?  I'm not sure.  (The Runaways were good when they were young, but not a lot of groups are like that.)

 

I have wanted them to do a "second chance"/"al--most stars" season, but I don't know if that would have saved it either.

[Jextella]

I think the show lost it's way a long, long time ago. If I had to pinpoint it on a timeline, I'd say it was when Paula became noticeably under the influence. It was never the same from that point on. A list of poorly selected judges came through such as Ellen DeGeneres, Karen DiGuardi, Nicki Manoj, Steven Tyler, etc (didn't she show herself in a bikini on stage at some point during her run?!).

Producers couldn't find a mix of judges that had good chemistry. At this point, the focus shifted from the contestants to the judging panel - if for no other reason, then simply because they couldn't get it right. The new set design was atrocious and the winners after the first few seasons were lackluster. When I think about it, it seems as if the show was only really good the first few seasons.

I like the current mix of judges - NOW, i.e. after they've had some time to settle in, but I don't like JLo's paycheck (reportedly somewhere in the 17million range). She's not worth it, IMO. I like her, and she's a good balance between the two guys, but I think they could find a less expensive female judge with the same results.

I'm already tiring of The Voice and am happy to come back to American Idol. I wish it would stick around - but on a smaller scale. Use money spent on JLo for keeping the show running!

That would be one of my suggestions. Other thoughts:

I don't think they should keep any of the contestants under any sort of post-show contract. It hasn't done anyone any good and the negative PR the show gets because of it seems to be counter productive. When I watch the show, I can't help but think it is being compromised - on both sides.

The focus should not be on making a super star. The Kelly's and Carrie's of the world are few and far between. Odds of anyone rising to that level are slim. Call it what it is and stop making empty promises to the contestants and by extension to the viewers.

[NutMeg]

I can only talk about why I stopped watching, but for me I think a big fail was that the way the public votes mean anyone I found exceptionally interesting vocally and performance-wise usually made the top 10 but never got close enough to winning (Adam Lambert was the closest as runner up). Voting means consensus, means eliminitating the most polarizing performers, and my favs are usually polarizing.

I buy a lot of music, and I only bought one album from an AI alumnus. Maybe the voters buy a lot, or maybe they don't. Not sure if album sales were also taken into account, or just viewer numbers.

Back to the public voting and the comparison with shows that have lasted much longer where there was never any public voting: it could have been interesting to have the top 20 or 24 make up a jury of sort that would vote (in addition or not to the viewers/ vote) on the performances, and therefore introduce another element to the elimination or success than "because America voted so".

Not that I don't respect America's vote, but the end results end up as a consensus, and a consensus rarely chooses an artist that will do well in the future, but rather puts a stamp on what's already done in most cases.

[GreyBunny]

I agree with the person upthread who said it was a time and a place thing.  The show has since run its course and I'm surprised it has lasted as long as it has.

 

So, no.  It couldn't be saved, nor should it.

[rose711]

Watching episode 3 and 4, the quality of the singers are generally very poor and at most one or two of the singers so far out through seem likely to survive Hollywood. I know they always have a lot of canon fodder but the real problem with the show is the lack of talent.

[shang yiet]

First, Cowell left and then David Cook started the WGWG trend resulting in blander and blander winners, then the desperate reshuffling of the judging panel. Only a Kelly/Carrie calibre winner every season could have saved it.

[Kromm]

First, Cowell left and then David Cook started the WGWG trend resulting in blander and blander winners, then the desperate reshuffling of the judging panel. Only a Kelly/Carrie calibre winner every season could have saved it.

A single one of those might have.

 

I've always been on the fence about if exciting losers like Adam Lambert, Daughtry, etc. helped the brand or ultimately hurt it when the winners were bland hopeless toast like the ones we've gotten. I mean jeez, Lambert and Daughtry even have big signage on the audition stage this season, and floating names in script in the new title card. Meanwhile if David Cook, Kris Allen, and Lee DeWyze are anywhere up there, they're hardly noticeable. 

 

I wonder if Nick Fradiani will get any push this season as the heir. Probably not. I hadn't even remembered he'd won, he was so unmemorable. And Caleb Johnson aka Meatloaf Junior? He was entertaining for TV, but man did he go away fast. Even the non-WGWG are hopeless. I hear (seriously, no joke) that Candice Glover does corporate events.

 

Phillip Phillips was the only winner they hit with even a little in years, and with him it had as much to do with his songwriting as the fact that apparently the world wasn't over Dave Matthews yet. And his lawsuit against 19 Records has probably stalled (or killed) his career for quite some time (if not permanently). And I guess there's annoying deep voiced plug-in country shit kicker Scotty McCreery. Really I've been shocked they didn't push even harder for all country winners after his success, since it seems to be the 'easy' way to assure actual success for a winner. That market buys into whatever Idol peddles at them (and to an extent, The Voice too). 

[MarkHB]

The thing I thought ironic about P2 was that his post-Idol success wasn't even brought on by folks at Idol at all.  "Home" went nowhere initially.... and then NBC picked it up as the theme for the women's gymnastics coverage in the London Olympics.  That was what made it a hit (proving to my mind that it wasn't necessarily the song that was bad, it was 19's / Interscope's marketing), and it wasn't even his own network.

[truthaboutluv]

I wouldn't say the song necessarily went nowhere. It was number one on iTunes right after the Finale and stayed there for a few days and remained in the top 10 for weeks. It debuted in the top 10 on Billboard the week it was released, the first time an Idol coronation song had done that since David Cook's Time of My Life and its digital sales its debut week were very impressive.

 

The song went platinum on its own before the Olympics picked it up. Now I definitely agree that the Olympics picking it up gave it new life and is what made it go on to sell over 4 million copies. But I wouldn't say it was total fail commercially before the Olympics. The critical reviews of the song were amazing as well. I think EW gave it an A and basically called it the only Idol coronation song to not suck. 

Edited January 18, 2016 by truthaboutluv

[MarkHB]

Fair enough; I honestly hadn't heard it anywhere after the show ended.

[Jextella]

1. expand song options; put a cap on how many of the same songs can be sung every few years

stop paying the judges exorbitant salaries

replace Jlo.  Save a ton of money and find someone who has a personality.  JLo's personality is as flat as a pancake and she has nothing to contribute ... get her outta there .... bring in someone young with a great personality and great chemistry with Keith and Harry.  I am not convinced Simon alone was the magic elixir for the show's success. Instead, I think it was the chemistry between him, Randy, and Paula.   I'm ok with more subdued judges like Harry and Keith.  They live and breath music and actually have helpful remarks.  They just need a 3rd who has great chemistry with them and doesn't break the bank.

Keep contestant's - and the viewer's - expectations low.  It's deflating to not produce a star year after year despite promoting the show as doing just that.   Too many years of crying wolf.  Winning Idol and a record deal doesn't guarantee stardom. Let the experience and exposure be enough.

Loosen the contestant's post-show contracts.  Many have said how horrible they are.  It doesn't leave a good mark for the show...and could be a disincentive for talented singers to try out (a la Project Runway).

Get rid of whoever is pulling the strings on selecting singers.  Let the judges truely judge and select.

Allow different ages and looks.

[BogoGog24]

I truly wonder how different the results would be if the judges really were responsible for choosing and not the producers. I'm sure we would have never had Daniel Seavey grace our screens last year or many of these unprepared 15 year olds this year.

[queenanne]

Look, this is a reality show, which means almost nothing is real. A lot of the kidding around is scripted. The people who survive had performed locally for years. There were very few innocents there. Now, I forget where I saw it, but they are finally admitting some people were plants recruited by casting, Much like most Amazing racers and Survivors were cast out of Evil Will's bar and were aspiring actors.   Some were too obvious, like Pia, the supposed selected winner of her season. Or Michael, the guy who died last year.  But if you go back in time, you find that Katharine  McPhee's mother was friends with the idol coaches, much like Corey Clark, whose family was not only friends with one of the voice trainers, but toured with her singing back up to Barry Manilow.  Even 17 year old Mormon on season 2 was selected by the judges to go on, her father was friends with the producers. Most of the earlier performers sang in church in the south for decades, in the later decades a lot had a band they performed with. I think Church gave them better training. The ones who sang in church seemed to harmonize better and perform in group songs better, group songs got progressively worse as the show continued.  .Still with experience, many did have to learn how to work a large stage and TV cameras.

 

...

 

Over the years, I think every tweak seemed to go the wrong way. A lot of those tweaks were suggested by fans. I do think putting on performers for other than pure talent brought on vote for the worse. I think that group won and pretty much damaged the show, which really was the shows own fault. I realize they want a mix of singers on it for reality reasons, you don't want the same type of people competing, but they should not have selected people who sounded like they needed auto tune, that seemed to happen more and more over the years. 

 

Yes, but the area between “plant” and “genuine” blurs vastly.  Katharine McPhee, for example, was very open at the time, that she had agreed to go on to jump-start a stalled acting career; even, I believe, to a chorus of at-home groans, once making that her answer when Ryan Seacrest asked her.  "What I really want to do is act."  She had been making the casting rounds of scripted TV, and even had an agent.  In fact, an entertainment attorney once told me that the vast majority who makes it to the camera on AI outside of jokes, is to the paraprofessional point of, at minimum, ABA (“All But Agented”).

 

And it's also fairly difficult, to not have "ABA plants", and yet simultaneously find yourself with people who don't need AutoTune.  Pitch can be taught, but it's tough to teach it without actually doing a lot of singing in front of a vocal coach, which is the type of thing that ABA paraprofessionals will be the ones to pay for.

 

Like TheGreenKnight said, Kris might pale in comparison to a lot of the talent they had prior to his season, but he's one of the better talents from his season forward. In fact, I'd say Kris represented a watershed moment for AI, and dare I say the culture altogether, in that he was one of the first artists who could take production-heavy pop songs and turn them into skeletal, acoustic dirges befitting of a singer-songwriter. These kinds of covers are all over the place now, and has even been done on Idol, but Kris kind of started it...or at least brought it to the forefront. Kris was one of the first contestants who wasn't TCO and wasn't the best singer of his season, but showed you can get far on AI by being an interesting artist. Sort of the forefather to JAX from last season.

 

My question is: has AI ever fulfilled it's promise of finding a virtual unknown, like, some kid who just sings at church and maybe at their school talent show, who winds up winning and becoming a recording artist? It seems like they never really did:

 

Kelly Clarkson: tried out after moving home from LA after trying to be a star and recording demos

Ruben Studdard: had been formally trained in college, sang with his own band for years, recorded demos

Fantasia: sang in church her whole life, toured with her family's band as a child

Carrie Underwood: had a record deal at 14, sang at festivals and church and even at events in college

Taylor Hicks: journeyman musician who had recorded an album, played bars for years

Jordin Sparks: showbiz kid who sang all over the place, toured with CCM artist Michael W. Smith, won local singing contests

David Cook: had released a solo album prior to Idol, was a working musician for years playing bars/clubs

Kris Allen: was a professional musician prior to trying out, had been playing around for years, dropped out of college to music full-time

Lee DeWyze: had been signed to an indie label, released two albums, his band had been played on local radio, prior to auditioning

Scott McCreery: sang in several singing groups in high school, won a local singing contest, did shows for a local radio station

Phillip Phillips: had been playing for years with his band, won a local singing contest

Candice Glover: had tried twice before winning AI, sang at church and in school

Caleb Johnson: sang professionally with his band, recorded an album prior to winning

 

Looking at the list, it seems like the only two people who weren't more or less semi-pro is Scotty and Candice.

 

It would be very interesting to have a season made up entirely of people who maybe think they can sing, but may never have sung; but it’s quite a different thing to think, that plants/connections make much of a difference.  They are still (overwhelmingly, primarily) casting desperate strivers who have not yet had a record deal.  Just because they’ve been auditioning for 3-4 years means they’re not “real viable candidates” or whatever?  Maybe once in a million you’ll get an Ayla Brown type where singing is just one of the many things they do (IIRC Brown was pursuing women’s basketball) and they’re not really interested in professional singing opportunities thus haven’t pimped themselves everywhere, but some impresario could do that with what we’ve already got in respect of YouTube (“Do you think I can sing?  tell me honestly”) type teenyboppers with faulty sopranos.  I'm not going to hold it against Emma Stone that she did children's theater on her way to being a successful movie actress.  I'd call it "the proper amount of training and experience for an aspiring creative to have"; or, variantly, "There is no such thing as an overnight success."

 

That said, I knew post-show would be the real battle and I remember Simon saying once to Kris during the season that he didn't come across as a star and that would hurt him and he was right. Hollywood is a business - if magazines think they will get sales and hits off of covering an artist they will. It's not rocket science. So yeah, most of the media believed there was more interest in Adam and talked about him. Some fans seemed to believe Kris was owed some kind of success and attention just because he won the title and no, it doesn't work that way. 

 

I haven't gotten that vibe off of folks.  What I have gotten the vibe of, is that Lambert fans are so busy running down Kris Allen for not being Adam Lambert, that they aren't giving Allen any of the above-listed credit for being an excellent musician and arranger, which is a skill in itself and people clearly responded to it.  Whether it's an enduring response, is an issue that may not be controllable.  I bought several songs off his album so I'm not responsible for his lack of success.

 

I wonder if Nick Fradiani will get any push this season as the heir. Probably not. I hadn't even remembered he'd won, he was so unmemorable. And Caleb Johnson aka Meatloaf Junior? He was entertaining for TV, but man did he go away fast. Even the non-WGWG are hopeless. I hear (seriously, no joke) that Candice Glover does corporate events.

 

I don't find any of those people particularly visually pleasing, which is tough under a visual medium such as TV.  If I wouldn't want to look at them for 90 minutes on a concert stage/awards ceremony...

Edited February 1, 2016 by queenanne

[truthaboutluv]

I haven't gotten that vibe off of folks.  What I have gotten the vibe of, is that Lambert fans are so busy running down Kris Allen for not being Adam Lambert, that they aren't giving Allen any of the above-listed credit for being an excellent musician and arranger, which is a skill in itself and people clearly responded to it.  Whether it's an enduring response, is an issue that may not be controllable.  I bought several songs off his album so I'm not responsible for his lack of success.

 

 

First, I said some fans, so clearly I was not speaking for every person who liked Kris Allen. Second, my comment was specifically in response to a comment that equated the show's demise or the start of it to them apparently not allowing Kris his "reign" and apparently pushing Adam instead of him, which yes, I think is ridiculous. As I said in my original statement, I cannot believe that almost eight years later, this Adam vs. Kris crap is still a thing, complete with how maligned and badly treated Kris supposedly was.

 

I didn't do this my idol vs. your idol shit back in the popular AI days on TWOP and I damn sure am not doing it now. Crazies were always on both sides of the coin for most seasons so that whole "well some Adam fans didn't give Kris credit...." can just as easily be countered with, "well some Kris fans didn't like Adam because..." and seriously, ain't nobody got time for that.

 

Again, my comment was simply directed at the frankly absurdity that this show's demise was because Kris Allen was supposedly mistreated by the powers of American Idol and thrown aside in favor of Adam Lambert. Kris got his recording contract, got his album, got his required entertainment appearances and press and in every way was very much treated like the winner in my opinion. Hell from my view, he got a much better deal than poor Lee Dewyze. And so my point was simply that it seemed to me that for some, winning meant he should have been guaranteed more success than Adam who was the runner up and all I was saying is that the real world doesn't work that way. 

Edited February 1, 2016 by truthaboutluv