The actual purpose of the judges on American Idol?

Cafe Society
1

I don’t recall there ever being an actual thread about this, and I have plenty of time right now (and don’t want to clutter up a regular AI thread), so here goes.

First off…and I’m as amazed as anyone by this…this is the one reality show that has gotten better with time, and markedly so. Of course, getting the rights to a wide variety of songs helps a lot, and the production values are much higher. The talent level has gone up, too; there wasn’t a single person I found annoying and only two I found a bit boring. Still too many glory notes, but that’s just the nature of the game.

There’s just one thing I’m still not digging after all these years. Judging. I loathe this part. I can judge for myself, dammit; I don’t need to hear the ramblings of a bunch of pretentious blowhards (who almost never have anything remotely insightful anyway), and I really don’t need to hear the insipid reaction from the peanut gallery.

For the sake of simplicity, I’ll just list the things I’ve heard, and you can all debate them as you will.

"How are the contestants supposed to improve and grow if they don’t give honest critiques?
It is not the judges’ duty to act as mentors. (In fact, one of the main reasons Simon Cowell created The X-Factor was to implement this.) If you need three overpaid spectators to improve as a singer, you really have no business in the final 12. More to the point, however, this is a competition to find out which ONE singer will win a recording contract. Even if the judges did see themselves as mentors, why would they have any interest in helping any but the one contestant they thought had the best chance? If anything, they should be tearing down those good for nothing also-rans.

"They’re too generous! They think everyone is wonderful! Tongue-bathing!
I’ve said it before: As long as they’re out in the open where yahoos can boo and hurl abuse at them, you are never going to get honest criticism. Can you blame them? How would YOU like to hear “boooooooo” every time you said something the tiniest big negative? You want them to have the freedom to be brutal, have the judging done in an quiet, private room. Why is this not possible again?

"I miss Simon Cowell. He wasn’t afraid to tear down someone who sucked and when he praised you it really meant something etc."
Firstly, did you listen to what the guy actually had to say? He was a hack. “Karaoke” this, “cruise ship” that, “ridiculolus” and “unoriginal” and “indulgent” and “didn’t make it your own”…not once did I ever get the impression that he knew the first thing about pop music. He was ridiculed for this, and rightfully so. I get the impression that a lot of viewers simply enjoy, for whatever reason, the contestants being ripped to shreds. The thing is, nobody makes it to the big dance by being a vulnerable crybaby. Nearly every reaction I remember boiled down to “Yeah, keep telling yourself that, loser.” Look, if you want them blasted, do it yourself. What do you need a mouthpiece for?

"Aw, man, they totally tongue bathed/screwed over that one! Now (s)he has no chance of staying/being eliminated!
I would honestly like to know if there is any evidence that the judges have this kind of power. I remember asking for a clarification from someone who took the judges to task for not calling out a semifinallist who stole someone else’s style because I truly could not see what the hell difference it made. From my observations, voting blocs have their own agendas; saying that someone is “too within your comfort zone” or “pitchy” has at most a negligible effect. And yes, I know that they sometimes TRY to sway the voters, but barring reeducation camps, they’re little they can do.

2

The judges are for ratings. They say things and fans hear the judgements with which they can react, agree or disagree. The show would likely be less dynamic and polarizing without judges. It didn’t matter whether or not Simon had poor judgment skills, it mattered that he was outlandish enough to cause reactions and keep ratings high.

3

Entertainment.

4

I’ve never really understood that particular comment by Simon – what makes a performance “indulgent”?

5

This may or may not be an artifact of the post-Cowell regime, but my impression is they’ve stopped including many (most?) of the “performers” that used to get on the air for comedic value alone. That is, the aired auditions are mostly people who can sing at some basic level, and there is not as much “point and laugh” stuff going on.

Remember the judges actually do decide who gets through to the rounds where you actually vote yourself. So in that sense, they definitely serve a purpose. Now, when it gets to the “America votes” stage, yes, the judges’ opinions’ are pretty much superfluous, but it’s the format of the show. The alternative is to simply air the performances and the Seacrest chatter and leave it to the viewers, which sounds like what you’re advocating (probably minus the Seacrest chatter), but that’s not the show they’re producing. The judges are a large part of the personality and marketing of the show, and they’re not going to simply drop them halfway through.

The mentor idea is also the basis of NBC’s The Voice, which I believe is doing well in the ratings. The judges there are actually coaches, and their picks compete against each other. But again, that’s not the show they’re producing.

Because it’s not good TV? Note also that audience reaction never hindered Cowell (actually he seemed to thrive on it).

I agree with you here; the votes sometimes become simple popularity contests beginning with friends and family, having little to do with superior talent.

6

Eye Candy. Especially Jennifer. 'Nuff Said.

7

It insists upon itself.

8

You could also say it is shallow and pedantic.

9

If Steven Tyler is eye candy, he must be the licorice jelly bean.

10

Exactly this. The primary goal of American Idol not to find the best singer among the contestants. Its primary goal is the same as any television show: get high ratings.

11

Okay, got it, thanks. I only brought this up again because I’ve been hearing the grumblings about bias, both here and on Television Without Pity. Could never understand why it mattered so much.

12

Don’t forget about the save (although I for one am not convinced that it is the judges that get to make the actual choice, rather than the producers telling the judges whether or not to use it; also keep in mind that it is the producers who decide how many of the finalists go on tour, and if you don’t make the tour, you were better off being cut during Hollywood Week as at least those singers can try again next year). Of course, that assumes that they still have the save this year.

In 2008, the head of the Academy of TV Arts and Sciences said they would be adding an Emmy category for “reality-competition show judges,” but then they announced that “it wouldn’t be ready in time” for the 2009 ceremony, and nothing has become of it since then.

13

  1. To fill time so they can have more commercials and actually make this show as long as it is.

  2. To give some kind of reaction to what just happened.

  3. To give the show some kind of identifiable personalities outside Ryan Seacrest.