Fuck American Idol

The BBQ Pit
1

I was just reading our thread on it in Cafe Society, and it pissed me off all over again.

I have few qualms about most of the contestants on it, but that’s not what this is about. This pitting is about the hotshots making the show and making the decisions about the contestants. I know there’s always been the tacit pressure by Hollywood and the media in general to look and dress a certain way, but it was given a violent shove into overdrive nearly ten years ago with the resurrection of the manufactured boyband movement, which irks me for reasons other than the contrived, transparent, sappy music.

It’s nauseating enough that people who have no brains and minimal talent can make a career (and a spectacular one at that) out of God-given good looks and nepotism alone, but there’s a corollary: it used to be the case that if you had real talent and/or worked really really hard (paying your dues, some might call it), you might be able to make a living in the entertainment industry. Now, it doesn’t seem to matter if you have any talent or not (in fact, it seems that having less talent is better, because it makes you a better puppet for the businessmen in suits), you won’t get anywhere in music, movies, television, or anything else if you had a bad dice roll when your looks were being determined.

Seriously, I would postulate that people like Bob Dylan and Dustin Hoffman, just for two examples that spring to mind, probably would be nobodies if they started trying to make their living in the 90s. It apparently doesn’t matter if you’re one of the greatest songwriters or actors ever; if you don’t ooze sex appeal, you won’t anywhere.

Think about it (because I personally am at a loss, so I’m asking for your input). How many recent success stories can we attribute to sheer talent, not good looks? I’m really at a loss for answers here.

And as I have said many times before, and will probably say many more times, my faith in the future of humankind continues to wane. I’d bet a brass nickel there are many people out there that can sing like Chris Cornell, Jeff Buckley, Grace Slick, and Layne Staley. There are people out there that could hold their own with the likes of Joe Satriani, Eddie Van Halen, Les Claypool, and Neil Peart. There are people out there who have the talent, charisma, and passion of actors like Robert De Niro, Katharine Hepburn, and Jack Nicholson. But we’ll never know it, because the powers that be are too busy wasting their time and their money giving contracts and roles to the Justin Timberlakes and the Hilary Duffs of the world. And it’s sheer crap like American Idol that’s leading the charge to ensure that this shit will endure, instead of declining. Our society is already teetering on the slippery slope over the valley of shallowness and ditziness, and American Idol is helping to push us over the edge.

Fuck that show, fuck all those people that thought it was a good idea to put that shit on the air, and fuck their pretentious, shallow judgment and ignoring people with talent just because they don’t reek of Britneyness. While I’m at it, fuck Abercrombie and Fitch and any other entity that thinks like they do.

2

You have seen the fellow who won two years ago, eh?

3

Whatever. So you’re unhappy that alot of people like music you don’t. If a lot of people didn’t like Dylan, he wouldn’t have been famous either. And you’re mightly deaf if you don’t see talent in many of the contestants.

As to looks, last years winner (in fact the top two) were hardly modelesque.

4

Oh sorry; two seasons ago.

5

Let me add to your list of people who might not have a chance today.

Buddy Holley - too nerdy looking.
Chuck Berry - too gangly and not photogenic.
Beatles - they didn’t dance and had weird hair.
Rolling Stones - funny looking, didn’t care about looks.
Queen - Freddy was too “flamboyant”
Elton John - same as Freddy
Cream - too grubby looking
Jimi Hendrix, Led Zeppelin, Frank Zappa, Ozzie Osbourne - too “different”
All of the greats from Motown - too “ethnic” probably.
Les Paul and Chet Atkins - not “pretty” enough, despite being consummate musicians and having invented many of the effects/techniques in use today.

And that’s just in the music field. But without them, what would music today be like? BORING.
And who the hell is Simon? Just an obnoxious insulting boor with no talent of his own. His only function is to dump on those with the guts to try. A parasite.

6

From what I’ve seen, if someone’s really got the goods as a singer they do get through. Clay Aiken looked like a total spaz at his initial audition.

If they’re good enough to get to the top (what is it 30? 40? I forget), the audience decides. I think if someone really had the pipes of a Freddie Mercury or an Aretha Franklin they could still stand a chance to win. Simon may be a douche about looks but if someone is truly talented he admits it.

7

Though Simon is acidic, he’s a damn good judge of talent.

8

I think I may have been unclear. It isn’t whether any of the contestants have talent or not. I have heard a few of the people who have been on American Idol, and I agree that there are some good singers amongst them. I’m saying that there are some good (possibly great) singers, some of which may be better than all the hot people, which get turned away because they don’t have the sex appeal.

The entertainment business didn’t used to be about who was the hottest. It used to be (mostly) about who could sing, who could write and play good music, who could convince you that they were the person they portrayed…not who got the audience off the most. :rolleyes:

9

I agree that the entertainment industry in general is too obsessed with looks and doesn’t much care about talent.

But I also think that AI has a modicum of democracy to it. I don’t think that some of today’s disposable poptarts would necessarily do well at all. How many of them would hold up if you forced them to sing a capella like the AI contestants have to do? Did you hear Ashlee Simpson at the Orange Bowl? She wouldn’t make it through the first round. One of the honest things about the show is that if you can’t sing, you WILL get exposed, and Somon WILL tell you about it…in detail. All of the winners have been legitmately good singers and the sucky barbie dolls have washed out quickly.

10

I agree with the OP that it’s a shame that looks are so important. I don’t think just looks are enough; but even if you have phenomenal talent, you have to have them or you’re shit outta luck. If not conventional looks, then you need to at least have charisma.
You could be the best singer/songwriter ever, you could be fucking-a Orpheus himself, but if you can’t make the cover of Vogue, you might as well go home.

11

Othersider wrote

Dude, you’re delusional. Entertainment always has and always will be about who can delight and excite an audience. And that means looking good. Extreme talent can overcome a lack of looks, but looks are part of the package.

Go look at the top forty of any year and you’ll see it filled with looks.

12

Yeah. And where has that guy been for two years? Hiding?

13

Ckay Aiken is a better singer…and he’s not exactly Brad Pitt himself.

14

It’s not like AI is responsible for record sales anyway,

15

That’s it in a nutshell.

Hey, I think you have a point, but I’m not delusional. Lots of people, speaking in the most objective way I can, probably aren’t nearly as attractive as your typical new actor or singer today. For example (pardon me while I steal a previous post, and also pardon me if I insult someone you find attractive):

The Rolling Stones, one of the most prolific and successful bands ever, having over 70 hits, has been in the top 40 more than almost anyone. They’re known for Mick Jagger and Keith Richards and their various physical flaws. You can’t honestly tell me either of them was given their gig based on their appearance.

The Beatles, probably the other candidate for the most successful band ever, have had have been in the top 40, often at the top of it, so often they might well be considered a reason for having started it. In 1964 alone, they had almost thirty charting singles, more than half of which were in the top 40, and six of which made it to number one. Many of us might agree they weren’t particularly unattractive, but I for one don’t think their success was based on their looks.

Bob Dylan has been in the top 40 more than 20 times, has written hundreds of songs, and probably has had more influence on popular music than any other single person. No offense to him, but he’s not what I’d call a looker.

B.B. King has had dozens of hits, many of them in the top 40. He will be remembered for many things, including being probably the most important and influential person to ever pick up a guitar, but probably not for his good looks.

Consider also Buddy Holly, Chuck Berry, James Brown, Johnny Cash, Aretha Franklin, Michael Jackson, Bruce Springsteen, David Bowie, Tom Petty, Rod Stewart, Neil Young, and Ozzy Osbourne. These are some of the biggest names in popular music. Again, I mean no offense to anyone who finds any of them attractive, but I think overall, the sex appeal of these people is latent at best.

I would also like to mention Led Zeppelin, AC/DC, Creedence Clearwater Revival, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Black Sabbath, Aerosmith, Metallica, U2, Pearl Jam, Nirvana, Guns N’ Roses, and Pink Floyd. These bands, while probably not as prevalent in the top 40, have all been in there at some point - and most or all of these are rather revered as some of the biggest bands in the world. I don’t think I’d believe that any of them got their gigs as a result of being good-looking - it was all about their talents.

Take, in particular, Steven Tyler and Axl Rose. Both of them have great stage presence, and neither of them probably makes millions of girls wet just by looking at them, like, say, Brandon Boyd and Justin Timberlake do.

I could also mention a rather long list of actors and actresses, but I think most of you get my point already.

Which, I think, is a shame - consider all the examples I just cited. Music isn’t about music anymore, it’s about appearances and, as an afterthought, music.

16

Everyone you listed was a musician, except Aretha Franklin and I don’t think she was unattractive when her career began.

American Idol is a competion for, duh, an idol vocalist. A tool for producers and songwriters. They’re not the entirety of the music industry, but they’ve always been a staple of it.

Ugly rock bands are a staple too!

17

Do you mean, everyone except her was only a musician? What about David Bowie? Some of the others have had other vocations as well…but I agree, Aretha wasn’t unattractive. But IMHO, she wasn’t, say, Michelle Phillips.

18

Not only, just using ‘musician’ as a catch-all for artists as opposed to people performing someone else’s music.

Of course ‘mere’ idols can go on to bigger things (Sinatra).

19

Ah, okay. Actually she did write or co-write some of her music, but she did perform a lot of covers too.

20

Jagger and Richards are pretty hideous now, but that’s after 40 years of being a rock star and doing every drug known to man. Jagger’s whole shtick in the 60s was about being sexy and dangerous. They wrote fantastic songs as well, but they got their foot in the door with their appeal.
I mean, what do you think Beatlemania was about?