Welcome to Omgili,
Omgili ( Oh My God I Love It ;) is a search engine for discussions. With Omgili you can find answers and solutions, debates, discussions, personal experiences, opinions and more... To learn more about Omgili click here.
This is a complete preview of the discussion as it was indexed by Omgili crawlers. Use this preview if the original discussion is unavailable.
Click here to view the original discussion.
[http://ebassist.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19...]
Click here to search for discussions with Omgili discussions search engine.
 |
American Idol - ebassist dot com
Maybe a bit off topic, sorry for that - but jesus this program (American
idol) is bloody awful...
Do they not have any proper sound crew or have
auditions to clear out the debris beforehand??
|
|
Larry Shaw Quote: :
>
Maybe a bit off topic, sorry for that - but jesus this program
>
(American idol) is bloody awful...
Do they not have any proper sound
>
Crew or have auditions to clear out the debris beforehand??
The auditions *deliberately* leave terrible people in the mix.
It's so
the folks on TV and the people watching at home can make fun of them.
Gen X's version of "humor".
I refuse to watch, because of that and because the show elevates the
"star" at the expense of actual musicians.
|
|
I watch it on occasion, but have problems with it.
First of all, Bob
Dylan, The Rolling Stones, Louis Armstrong, John Lennon, Miles, Jaco,
Joni Mitchell, and countless others that have given so much to the
musical world would have been eliminated in the first round.
It's a
VERY narrow slice of what it music.
Secondly, they DO leave talentless
people in the mix so they can be eliminated in the most callous,
heartless manner.
True, these people need to understand (perhaps be
told) that they have no career in show business, but that can be said
without crushing people's dreams with cruelty.
I fully expect Simon
Crowell to be found in a bloody pulp in some alley someday, and I'd be
the last to say he didn't deserve it.
To me, ratings are not more
important than people.
Guess I'm old fashioned.
Yet, on the other hand, some who make it through the trial by fire are
truly talented, and deserve success and exposure.
Also, the band is
superior and as far as I can tell the music is never prerecorded.
YMMV.
BW
|
|
Quote: :
> Larry Shaw Quote: :
>>
Maybe a bit off topic, sorry for that - but jesus this program
>>
(American idol) is bloody awful...
Do they not have any proper sound
>>
Crew or have auditions to clear out the debris beforehand??
>
>
The auditions *deliberately* leave terrible people in the mix.
It's so
> the folks on TV and the people watching at home can make fun of them.
>
>
Gen X's version of "humor".
>
>
I refuse to watch, because of that and because the show elevates the
>
"star" at the expense of actual musicians.
You're "refusing" to watch it as a form of protest?
It's just TV, Rich.
We all like to judge people, especially regarding something we can all
do to some degree.
Part of the success of Cops is that we like to feel
better about ourselves by seeing the losers getting arrested.
As for elevating stars above actual musicians, why does that bug you?
Do
you buy music based on the skills of the musicians or because you enjoy
the music and the person(s) performing it?
If you want to be an incredible musician, go for it.
Nobody's stopping
you.
If you want to be paid millions of dollars, find something that
millions of people will pay a dollar to see/hear you do.
--
Write a wise saying and your name will live forever.
- Anonymous
|
|
Jim Carr Quote: :
>
Quote: :
>>
The auditions *deliberately* leave terrible people in the mix.
It's
>> so the folks on TV and the people watching at home can make fun of
>>
Them.
>>
>>
Gen X's version of "humor".
>>
>>
I refuse to watch, because of that and because the show elevates the
>>
"star" at the expense of actual musicians.
>
>
You're "refusing" to watch it as a form of protest?
It's just TV,
>
Rich.
It's not a form of protest.
I just don't like it, so I don't watch.
Protesting implies that there's an attempt to get a message through to
someone.
Unless someone's monitoring my TV without my knowledge, this
isn't happening in my case.
>
We all like to judge people, especially regarding something we can all
>
Do to some degree.
Part of the success of Cops is that we like to feel
>
Better about ourselves by seeing the losers getting arrested.
Sure, OK.
I confess, I do watch cops on occasion.
I don't think
there's a competition going on there for "best criminal", though ;-)
>
As for elevating stars above actual musicians, why does that bug you?
Because there were times in fairly recent memory in which those who were
rewarded by stardom actually had decent musical and songwriting skills.
I realize that the pendulum has swung the other way, but I'm hoping it
will swing back while I'm still around, and I tend to reward those who
have those skills with my purchasing power.
>
Do you buy music based on the skills of the musicians or because you
>
Enjoy the music and the person(s) performing it?
Both.
And I prefer to see both in a single package.
Actually, all
three: singing, playing, songwriting.
Two out of three wouldn't be
bad.
>
If you want to be an incredible musician, go for it.
Nobody's stopping
>
You. If you want to be paid millions of dollars, find something that
>
Millions of people will pay a dollar to see/hear you do.
It's not about me, I know my limitations and I do music on the side;
it's not my primary career, and it will never be.
It's about
songwriters and musicians getting proper credit for their contributions
and being recognized by the general public.
|
|
Quote: :
> It's not a form of protest.
I just don't like it, so I don't watch.
>
Protesting implies that there's an attempt to get a message through to
>
Someone. Unless someone's monitoring my TV without my knowledge, this
>
Isn't happening in my case.
I was perplexed by the use of the word "refuse" which to me sounds like
you're on some sort of mission.
I don't "refuse" to watch Reba - I just
don't watch it.
>
Sure, OK. I confess, I do watch cops on occasion.
I don't think
>
There's a competition going on there for "best criminal", though ;-)
Sometimes I wonder, though.
>
Both. And I prefer to see both in a single package.
Actually, all
>
Three: singing, playing, songwriting.
Two out of three wouldn't be
>
Bad.
I want to be entertained.
I find Bob Dylan's singing at Concert for
Bangladesh to be infinitely more entertaining than any number of
incredibly talented singers I've heard.
>
It's not about me, I know my limitations and I do music on the side;
>
It's not my primary career, and it will never be.
It's about
> songwriters and musicians getting proper credit for their contributions
>
And being recognized by the general public.
I get that.
What I don't get is *why* you feel like they deserve
"recognition" or "proper" credit.
Maybe it's the bass player in me that
has always understood that singers always get noticed first and lead
guitarists second (if at all).
It's just branding, like in every other business.
The name on the brand
is quite often had little direct influence on whatever it is you bought
(I doubt "Victoria" had much do with with my wife's bras).
I guess I approach it differently.
Why do we need these elaborate
credits in movies, TV shows and even music albums?
What other industry
goes into such excruciating detail?
While Shelby might have "designed"
the Mustang, lots of other people contributed crucial design elements
right down to the shape of the gear shift, but the owner's manual
doesn't give us their names.
However, I *do* know the name of the
assistant to the key grip on Platoon.
|
|
Jim Carr Quote: :
>
Quote: :
>
>
I want to be entertained.
I find Bob Dylan's singing at Concert for
>
Bangladesh to be infinitely more entertaining than any number of
>
Incredibly talented singers I've heard.
But doesn't the fact that Dylan's singing words he wrote have any
bearing on your respect for the guy?
In a sense, you're making my
point.
Dylan wouldn't have passed round 1 of AI, and I don't think
today's music industry would give a guy like him the time of day.
>>
It's not about me, I know my limitations and I do music on the side;
>>
It's not my primary career, and it will never be.
It's about
>>
Songwriters and musicians getting proper credit for their
>>
Contributions and being recognized by the general public.
>
>
I get that. What I don't get is *why* you feel like they deserve
>
"recognition" or "proper" credit.
Maybe it's the bass player in me
>
That has always understood that singers always get noticed first and
>
Lead guitarists second (if at all).
I'm guessing here, Jim, but I'd imagine that at some point in the past
someone famous inspired you in some way to take up bass.
I know that
for me, McCartney and Harrison, and to a lesser degree Brian and Carl
Wilson, inspired me.
I can't say the same for those anonymous studio
guys who toiled away on Frankie Avalon's and Fabian's hits.
>
It's just branding, like in every other business.
The name on the
>
Brand is quite often had little direct influence on whatever it is
>
You bought (I doubt "Victoria" had much do with with my wife's bras).
>
>
I guess I approach it differently.
Why do we need these elaborate
>
Credits in movies, TV shows and even music albums?
What other industry
>
Goes into such excruciating detail?
While Shelby might have "designed"
>
The Mustang, lots of other people contributed crucial design elements
>
Right down to the shape of the gear shift, but the owner's manual
>
Doesn't give us their names.
However, I *do* know the name of the
>
Assistant to the key grip on Platoon.
I'm not talking about studio musicians, who are apparently quite content
to toil on in anonymity.
I'm talking about bands like the Beach Boys,
Beatles, Stones, Who, Queen, Pink Floyd, Sex Pistols, Police, U2, STP,
Audioslave, etc.
Where the fans know who plays what instrument, who
writes the songs, etc., as well as who sings on them.
To me, its those
people who inspire others to play, and I happen to think that's a worthy
thing.
What fraction of Britney's fans do you think knows who plays bass on her
records?
Better yet, what fraction of them are inspired to play bass?
|
|
Quote: :
> But doesn't the fact that Dylan's singing words he wrote have any
>
Bearing on your respect for the guy?
In a sense, you're making my
>
Point. Dylan wouldn't have passed round 1 of AI, and I don't think
>
Today's music industry would give a guy like him the time of day.
He entertained me.
I don't "respect" him for running a business based on
his talent at writing songs.
I respect that he was willing to donate
some time to raise money for the folks of Bangladesh, but beyond that I
don't have respect or disrespect for him since all I care about is
whether I find his stuff entertaining (which I do).
Would he get the time of day these days?
I'd say back then this country
was looking for a humble rebel who told the truth.
That's not what they
want to day, so probably not.
But if he struck some other nerve, he'd do
just fine.
There are plenty of talentless hacks becoming famous these days.
So
what? That's how the entertainment industry works.
You tickle a fancy
and get famous.
That's why so many come and go, and few stay at the top
for many years.
Many bands are not much different than mood rings and
pet rocks.
>
I'm guessing here, Jim, but I'd imagine that at some point in the past
>
Someone famous inspired you in some way to take up bass.
I know that
> for me, McCartney and Harrison, and to a lesser degree Brian and Carl
>
Wilson, inspired me.
I can't say the same for those anonymous studio
>
Guys who toiled away on Frankie Avalon's and Fabian's hits.
I had no bass idols whatsoever.
To be honest I had been playing for
years before I ever heard of Jaco and played several more years before
ever listening to his stuff.
I just like bass.
My personality over the years tends to put me in
positions crucial to the success of the endeavor.
Whether it's out front
or behind the scenes is irrelevant.
>
I'm not talking about studio musicians, who are apparently quite content
>
To toil on in anonymity.
I'm talking about bands like the Beach Boys,
>
Beatles, Stones, Who, Queen, Pink Floyd, Sex Pistols, Police, U2, STP,
>
Audioslave, etc. where the fans know who plays what instrument, who
>
Writes the songs, etc., as well as who sings on them.
To me, its those
>
People who inspire others to play, and I happen to think that's a worthy
>
Thing.
> What fraction of Britney's fans do you think knows who plays bass on her
>
Records? Better yet, what fraction of them are inspired to play bass?
So, you're saying American Idol is bad because whatever bands form to
support the winners will not inspire other musicians to take up the
instrument?
Maybe I'm not following.
--
Write a wise saying and your name will live forever.
- Anonymous
|
|
> Maybe a bit off topic, sorry for that - but jesus this program (American
>
Idol) is bloody awful...
Do they not have any proper sound crew or have
>
Auditions to clear out the debris beforehand??
You mean you actually watched it?
Larry, Larry, Larry...
"Bloody awful" doesn't even begin to convey the true quality of it.
Catastrophic, maybe.
"Cynical joke being pulled off at the gullible
viewing public's expense" is close, too, I think.
"More predictable
garbage from Rupert Murdoch and Company" kinda gets at it.
How 'bout
"You spend time watching the Fox Network and you get what you deserve"?
|
|
Larry Quote: :
>
Maybe a bit off topic, sorry for that - but jesus this program (American
>
Idol) is bloody awful...
Do they not have any proper sound crew or have
>
Auditions to clear out the debris beforehand??
>
>
What's wrong with the "sound crew"?
|
|
> So, you're saying American Idol is bad because whatever bands form to support the winners will not inspire other musicians to take up the instrument?
Maybe I'm not following
Come on, Jim, is this concept really that difficult?
American Idol
promotes the notion that the singer is the star, and that's it, no one
else matters.
You're right in that the singer usually gets MOST of
the attention, but the trend is today that they get ALL of it.
Now
you may just think that's the way it should be, and if so fine, but I
remember growing up in a much different, and if you ask me, much
richer, musical environment, where the entire band was valued for
their creative inputs.
I think you must be somewhat unusual in that no one inspired you to
play your instrument.
Kids who grow up watching Britney Spears, or
maybe now Miley Cyrus, might get inspired to grow up to be a singer,
or maybe even a backup dancer.
I don't see why that would plant the
idea in their head to play bass.
These stars use differnet musicians
probably for every tour and who would notice?
What is the message
that this sends?
That musicians are anonymous and replaceable, and
thus not really important.
They are nothing more than hired staff for
the star.
In this scenario the pretty face trumps the people playing
the instruments and writing the songs.
Having lived through musical
eras where this was not the case, this strikes me as pretty shallow.
As for Bob Dylan, I've always thought the fact that he had written all
those songs was the main POINT of what he was doing.
Here is an
ARTIST, writing the material, playing it, and singing it.
What he is
doing is on a whole different level than someone like Madonna.
I have almost never bought cds by people who were just singers, they
just don't interest me that much.
Bands like the ones that Rich
mentioned truly CREATE their music, which I find infinitely more
interesting than some producer picking out a pretty face, pairing them
up with a decent song, getting a bunch of session guys together, and
letting the singer basically sing karaoke over it.
It's the
difference between the Beatles and the Monkees.
|
|
Quote: :
>>
So, you're saying American Idol is bad because whatever bands form to support the winners will not inspire other musicians to take up the instrument?
Maybe I'm not following
>
>
>
>
Come on, Jim, is this concept really that difficult?
American Idol
>
Promotes the notion that the singer is the star, and that's it, no one
>
Else matters. You're right in that the singer usually gets MOST of
>
The attention, but the trend is today that they get ALL of it.
Now
> you may just think that's the way it should be, and if so fine, but I
>
Remember growing up in a much different, and if you ask me, much
>
Richer, musical environment, where the entire band was valued for
>
Their creative inputs.
>
>
I think you must be somewhat unusual in that no one inspired you to
>
Play your instrument.
Kids who grow up watching Britney Spears, or
>
Maybe now Miley Cyrus, might get inspired to grow up to be a singer,
>
Or maybe even a backup dancer.
I don't see why that would plant the
>
Idea in their head to play bass.
These stars use differnet musicians
>
Probably for every tour and who would notice?
What is the message
>
That this sends? That musicians are anonymous and replaceable, and
>
Thus not really important.
They are nothing more than hired staff for
>
The star. In this scenario the pretty face trumps the people playing
>
The instruments and writing the songs.
Having lived through musical
>
Eras where this was not the case, this strikes me as pretty shallow.
>
>
As for Bob Dylan, I've always thought the fact that he had written all
>
Those songs was the main POINT of what he was doing.
Here is an
> ARTIST, writing the material, playing it, and singing it.
What he is
> doing is on a whole different level than someone like Madonna.
>
>
I have almost never bought cds by people who were just singers, they
>
Just don't interest me that much.
Bands like the ones that Rich
>
Mentioned truly CREATE their music, which I find infinitely more
>
Interesting than some producer picking out a pretty face, pairing them
>
Up with a decent song, getting a bunch of session guys together, and
>
Letting the singer basically sing karaoke over it.
It's the
> difference between the Beatles and the Monkees.
AMEN!!!
Beautiful post, Brotha!!
|
|
Quote: :
>>
So, you're saying American Idol is bad because whatever bands form to support the winners will not inspire other musicians to take up the instrument?
Maybe I'm not following
>
>
>
>
Come on, Jim, is this concept really that difficult?
American Idol
>
Promotes the notion that the singer is the star, and that's it, no one
>
Else matters.
American Idol doesn't "promote" anything.
They, like every other show,
try to get as many people to watch.
This enables them to make gobs of
money.
It's really that simple.
That said, the singer *is* by far the one person in the band to whom the
audience relates.
I find this to be such a Universal Truth that I am not
going to waste my time explaining it.
If they took this exact model and tried to do American Guitarist (they
did try American Band), it would fail.
Period.
> I think you must be somewhat unusual in that no one inspired you to
>
Play your instrument.
Having hung out here for a few years, I would have to agree.
I never
cared about who played the instrument, only that I enjoyed how it
sounded.
I remember spending a lot of time learning as much as I could
of the album "Not Fragile" by BTO.
To this day I have no idea who played
bass.
>
As for Bob Dylan, I've always thought the fact that he had written all
>
Those songs was the main POINT of what he was doing.
Here is an
> ARTIST, writing the material, playing it, and singing it.
What he is
> doing is on a whole different level than someone like Madonna.
I just find him captivating to listen to.
I have no idea why.
>
I have almost never bought cds by people who were just singers, they
>
Just don't interest me that much.
Bands like the ones that Rich
>
Mentioned truly CREATE their music, which I find infinitely more
>
Interesting than some producer picking out a pretty face, pairing them
>
Up with a decent song, getting a bunch of session guys together, and
>
Letting the singer basically sing karaoke over it.
It's the
> difference between the Beatles and the Monkees.
I love the Monkees.
They rank right up there with Ohio Express in my
collection of favorite bubble gum music.
--
Write a wise saying and your name will live forever.
- Anonymous
|
|
"iarwain" <iarwain_8@hotmail.com>
Wrote in message
news:8fa0d27e-275a-4f88-8047-890dbe436a5e@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>
So, you're saying American Idol is bad because whatever bands form to
>>
Support the winners will not inspire other musicians to take up the
>>
Instrument? Maybe I'm not following
>
>
>
>
Come on, Jim, is this concept really that difficult?
American Idol
>
Promotes the notion that the singer is the star, and that's it, no one
>
Else matters. You're right in that the singer usually gets MOST of
>
The attention, but the trend is today that they get ALL of it.
Now
> you may just think that's the way it should be, and if so fine, but I
>
Remember growing up in a much different, and if you ask me, much
>
Richer, musical environment, where the entire band was valued for
>
Their creative inputs.
>
Great post!
However, debating with Jim is about as productive as
calling out the chords to your drummer.
Jim just wants to disagree, it does
not matter what the topic is or what position you take.
My family is into Idol almost every year and I usually watch early on
when they still let a soul singer or two on the show.
Every year is the
same formula though, with "cute" kiddies staying on while real players get
the boot.
Hell, I read that this year people found out the good singers
actually have experience singing and the fans were upset by that!
They want
somebody who sings like Aretha, but only in the shower.
The one good side to Idol is the band, those guys are top players and
Ricky Minor kicks butt.
If you watch enough of it you're bound to catch at
least a couple songs a season that leave you saying "That bass line was
worth watching the whole show this week"
As for singers, well, whenever I see one start thinking she's above the
rest of us, I just ask "Hey can you count off the next song?" Or "I can't
remember, is this one in G or F#?" Then we see who's really running the
show.
-Jonathan
|
|
I'm guessing that the motivation is the same as in UK;
To persuade gullible
viewers to call premium-rate telephone numbers to cast votes that won't
count, succinctly described by The Independent last week as "a tax on
stupidity".
Can we export Antandec to the US (or should that be exile)?
"Larry Shaw" <larry@local-angle.com>
Wrote in message
news:mp-dnZfwP8Cu3LrVnZ2dnUVZ8qqlnZ2d@bt.com...
>
Maybe a bit off topic, sorry for that - but jesus this program (American
>
Idol) is bloody awful...
Do they not have any proper sound crew or have
>
Auditions to clear out the debris beforehand??
>
|
|
Brian Quote: :
>
You mean you actually watched it?
Larry, Larry, Larry...
>
>
"Bloody awful" doesn't even begin to convey the true quality of it.
>
Catastrophic, maybe.
"Cynical joke being pulled off at the gullible
>
Viewing public's expense" is close, too, I think.
"More predictable
>
Garbage from Rupert Murdoch and Company" kinda gets at it.
How 'bout
> "You spend time watching the Fox Network and you get what you
>
Deserve"?
An interviewer asked Simon Cowell awhile back how he felt being labelled the
antichrist of music by some Brit music magazine, he just sneered and
shrugged it off.
The guy is making money faster than he can count it, if
you wanted a face to go with the decline of the music industry, there you
go.
Somebody once pointed out that if AI had been around in the early 60s
and Bob Dylan had tried out for the show he wouldn't have made it past the
screening audition.
AI isn't about good music, it's about *marketable*
music, and marketing over art is a big part of what has helped put the
industry into such a deep hole.
|
|
Quote: :
> Brian Quote: :
>
>>
You mean you actually watched it?
Larry, Larry, Larry...
>>
>>
"Bloody awful" doesn't even begin to convey the true quality of it.
>>
Catastrophic, maybe.
"Cynical joke being pulled off at the gullible
>>
Viewing public's expense" is close, too, I think.
"More predictable
>>
Garbage from Rupert Murdoch and Company" kinda gets at it.
How 'bout
>>
"You spend time watching the Fox Network and you get what you
>>
Deserve"?
>
>
An interviewer asked Simon Cowell awhile back how he felt being labelled the
>
Antichrist of music by some Brit music magazine, he just sneered and
>
Shrugged it off. The guy is making money faster than he can count it, if
>
You wanted a face to go with the decline of the music industry, there you
>
Go. Somebody once pointed out that if AI had been around in the early 60s
>
And Bob Dylan had tried out for the show he wouldn't have made it past the
>
Screening audition.
AI isn't about good music, it's about *marketable*
>
Music, and marketing over art is a big part of what has helped put the
>
Industry into such a deep hole.
Too bad the newsgroup protocol automatically includes the date.
Otherwise, this post could be attributed to any decade.
As for Dylan, he is *precisely* the kind of guy that American Idol would
have promoted.
You're confused because you think the show picks what
people like.
Sorry, no. The judges early on make an educated guess as to
what the *audience* will like.
Dylan was a character.
He was *exactly* what this country was looking
for at the time.
Do a Google Images search for him and look at all of
the photos making him out to be some "cool rebel loner" - clearly there
was a LOT of image involved.
The only difference really is that today's "image" is a bit different
than that of yesterday...and it will be different tomorrow.
It amuses me
that so many people like yourself want to pretend that *your* taste was
somehow pure, but everyone else's tastes are based on meaningless things
like image.
Like I keep saying, it's entertainment, which by nature is trendy and
fickle.
--
Write a wise saying and your name will live forever.
- Anonymous
|
|
Quote: :
> Great post!
However, debating with Jim is about as productive as
>
Calling out the chords to your drummer.
Jim just wants to disagree, it does
>
Not matter what the topic is or what position you take.
I'm glad to see you took Victor's dick out of your mouth to contribute
another useful snipe at me.
|
|
On May 12, 4:07�pm, "DGDevin" Quote: :
>
Brian Quote: :
>
>
An interviewer asked Simon Cowell awhile back how he felt being labelled the
>
Antichrist of music by some Brit music magazine, he just sneered and
>
Shrugged it off. �The guy is making money faster than he can countit, if
>
You wanted a face to go with the decline of the music industry, there you
>
Go. �Somebody once pointed out that if AI had been around in the early 60s
>
And Bob Dylan had tried out for the show he wouldn't have made it past the
>
Screening audition.
Ï¿½AI isn't about good music, it's about *marketable*
>
Music, and marketing over art is a big part of what has helped put the
>
Industry into such a deep hole.
American Idol is not a talent contest - it is a television show.
The
goal isn't to find talent;
It's to draw in viewers (ratings) so they
can sell advertising at inflated rates and turn a profit - same as any
other show.
The "first round" of the auditions with the three judges is actually
the fifth round.
Screeners weed out the boring people (but not the
untalented) in the unseen first four rounds to put as many people who
might make interesting television in front of the cameras and the
three famous judges, which is why a flamboyant guy dressed as the
Statue of Liberty makes it to the judges while a shy person with a
great voice doesn't.
|
|
Jim Quote: :
>
I'm glad to see you took Victor's dick out of your mouth to contribute
>
Another useful snipe at me.
Oh, come on, it's not impossible to type a Usenet post with a dick in
your mouth...
Way to bring it down, dude.
|
|
Jim Quote: :
>
Too bad the newsgroup protocol automatically includes the date.
>
Otherwise, this post could be attributed to any decade.
Perhaps two decades, Usenet not having been available to many folks outside
of that time frame.
>
As for Dylan, he is *precisely* the kind of guy that American Idol
>
Would have promoted.
You're confused because you think the show picks
>
What people like.
Sorry, no. The judges early on make an educated
>
Guess as to what the *audience* will like.
You're confused because you think you are justified in assuming beliefs I
did not express.
I don't think the show picks what people like, I thing it
picks what can be sold.
If they were judging food instead of singers they'd
always arrive at pizza because that's something easy to sell to the greatest
number of consumers.
>
Dylan was a character.
He was *exactly* what this country was looking
>
For at the time. Do a Google Images search for him and look at all of
>
The photos making him out to be some "cool rebel loner" - clearly
>
There was a LOT of image involved.
He was what a segment of the population wanted, but a huge portion of the
music-buying public still wanted Pat Boone and Brenda Lee and Paul Anka.
Take a look at the hit music of 1961 (when John Hammond signed Dylan to
Columbia), count the number of Dylan songs, notice the number you get is
zero.
Go forward year by year until you find a hit song by Dylan, notice
that doesn't happen until 1965.
His first album sold 5,000 copies in it's
first year, it took him four years to get a song on the charts, so much for
Dylan being *exactly* what the country was looking for.
Someone like Dylan would perhaps have made it onto AI as a comedy
contestant, someone for the judges to wince and eye-roll over, but he'd
never make it past the first round because he'd have been too quirky to be
taken seriously.
Above all AI wants "safe* music, a product they can peddle
with minimal fuss, they'd no more pick a folk singer who does protest songs
than they'd choose a thrash-metal screamer.
>
The only difference really is that today's "image" is a bit different
>
Than that of yesterday...and it will be different tomorrow.
It amuses
> me that so many people like yourself want to pretend that *your*
>
Taste was somehow pure, but everyone else's tastes are based on
>
Meaningless things like image.
What amuses me is people like yourself who first come up with a thesis and
only then think about maybe finding something to prop it up with.
I have no
problem admitting I've enjoyed plenty of trashy disposable music over the
years, from Herman's Hermits to The Monkees, I think I even bought the first
couple of Kiss albums.
But I can't help noticing that the artists who
really got under my skin forty years ago are still highly regarded all these
years later, so maybe I got it mostly right.
That isn't to say the music
industry hasn't always tried to keep up with passing fads, yet somehow in
the 60s they still managed to find some artists who would make a lasting
impact.
How many Americian Idol winners do you suppose will have entries in
the encyclopedia forty years from now?
>
Like I keep saying, it's entertainment, which by nature is trendy and
>
Fickle.
It's also art, or at least some of it is, and that at it's best has a way of
moving people years, decades and even centuries later.
The smart money is
on precious few AI winners making it into the first chapter in The History
of Popular Music.
|
|
John (Eryn Shewell Quote: :
>
American Idol is not a talent contest - it is a television show.
The
> goal isn't to find talent;
It's to draw in viewers (ratings) so they
>
Can sell advertising at inflated rates and turn a profit - same as any
>
Other show.
You're overlooking that AI is just part of Simon Cowell's business empire.
AI winners go on to sell CDs and concert tickets from which Cowell makes a
fat profit, the show is just part of his gig.
|
|
Quote: :
> He was what a segment of the population wanted, but a huge portion of the
>
Music-buying public still wanted Pat Boone and Brenda Lee and Paul Anka.
>
Take a look at the hit music of 1961 (when John Hammond signed Dylan to
>
Columbia), count the number of Dylan songs, notice the number you get is
>
Zero. Go forward year by year until you find a hit song by Dylan, notice
>
That doesn't happen until 1965.
His first album sold 5,000 copies in it's
>
First year, it took him four years to get a song on the charts, so much for
>
Dylan being *exactly* what the country was looking for.
As I said, tastes are fickle.
They didn't want a rebel loner in 1961.
Come 1965 the political climate in the USA had changed dramatically.
If
you don't believe that, go read a history book.
That's just how it works.
"Happy Days" and "The Brady Bunch" would not
make it today just like "South Park" and "CSI" wouldn't have made in the
early 1970s.
>
Someone like Dylan would perhaps have made it onto AI as a comedy
>
Contestant, someone for the judges to wince and eye-roll over, but he'd
>
Never make it past the first round because he'd have been too quirky to be
>
Taken seriously.
Two words:
Sanjaya
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Z9tUs8kTgE
>>
The only difference really is that today's "image" is a bit different
>>
Than that of yesterday...and it will be different tomorrow.
It amuses
>>
Me that so many people like yourself want to pretend that *your*
>>
Taste was somehow pure, but everyone else's tastes are based on
>>
Meaningless things like image.
>
>
What amuses me is people like yourself who first come up with a thesis and
>
Only then think about maybe finding something to prop it up with.
I have no
> problem admitting I've enjoyed plenty of trashy disposable music over the
>
Years, from Herman's Hermits to The Monkees, I think I even bought the first
>
Couple of Kiss albums.
But I can't help noticing that the artists who
>
Really got under my skin forty years ago are still highly regarded all these
>
Years later, so maybe I got it mostly right.
That isn't to say the music
>
Industry hasn't always tried to keep up with passing fads, yet somehow in
>
The 60s they still managed to find some artists who would make a lasting
>
Impact. How many Americian Idol winners do you suppose will have entries in
>
The encyclopedia forty years from now?
It's entertainment.
Personally, I don't care if they are "highly
regarded" or not come 10, 20 or 50 years later.
What does "highly regarded" mean anyway?
That it appeals to a new, young
audience?
That enough old people remember it?
There's nothing wrong with
entertainment that is still entertaining years later, but it's still
just entertainment.
American Idol is creating entertainment and selling it to make money.
That's it.
Period. Why you feel the need to condemn it because no
encyclopedia will mention any of the winners 40 years from now is beyond me.
>>
Like I keep saying, it's entertainment, which by nature is trendy and
>>
Fickle.
>
>
It's also art, or at least some of it is, and that at it's best has a way of
>
Moving people years, decades and even centuries later.
The smart money is
>
On precious few AI winners making it into the first chapter in The History
>
Of Popular Music.
Once you start *selling* it, then the artistic value declines sharply.
This is especially the case in music where so many other people are
involved in the production of the final product.
By that I mean that a
painter doesn't have a recording engineer, mixing engineer, producer,
somebody to master it, and album art director all having a major
influence on whether somebody buys it or not.
This all boils down to me finding it amusing that so many musicians get
in a huff about American Idol.
|
|
Crash Quote: :
>
Jim Quote: :
>
>>
I'm glad to see you took Victor's dick out of your mouth to contribute
>>
Another useful snipe at me.
>
>
>
Oh, come on, it's not impossible to type a Usenet post with a dick in
>
Your mouth...
>
>
Way to bring it down, dude.
I'm just getting a little tired of Jonathan.
He says I'm in his kill
file, so he only replies to my posts when he reads it in somebody else's
reply.
He never writes it *to* me, just *about* me.
And it's the same thing.
Apparently I don't have any real opinions - I
just express a differing opinion for my own amusement.
That kind of passive-aggressive, pansy-ass stuff gets on my nerves.
It's
no wonder that in his last band the leader would throw lemon slices at
him on stage and disrespect him in so many other ways.
--
Write a wise saying and your name will live forever.
- Anonymous
|
|
Larry Quote: :
>
Maybe a bit off topic, sorry for that - but jesus this program (American
>
Idol) is bloody awful...
Do they not have any proper sound crew or have
>
Auditions to clear out the debris beforehand??
>
>
Schadenfreude is not funny.
--
Les Cargill
|
|
Jim Quote: :
>
Quote: :
<snip>
>
>
You're "refusing" to watch it as a form of protest?
It's just TV, Rich.
>
Exactly.
http://www.michaelallsup.com/glass_teat.htm
<snip>
--
Les Cargill
|
|
Jim Carr Quote: :
>
Quote: :
>
>>
But doesn't the fact that Dylan's singing words he wrote have any
>>
Bearing on your respect for the guy?
In a sense, you're making my
>>
Point. Dylan wouldn't have passed round 1 of AI, and I don't think
>>
Today's music industry would give a guy like him the time of day.
>
>
He entertained me.
I don't "respect" him for running a business based
>
On his talent at writing songs.
I respect that he was willing to
>
Donate some time to raise money for the folks of Bangladesh, but
>
Beyond that I don't have respect or disrespect for him since all I
>
Care about is whether I find his stuff entertaining (which I do).
>
>
Would he get the time of day these days?
I'd say back then this
>
Country was looking for a humble rebel who told the truth.
That's not
> what they want to day, so probably not.
But if he struck some other
>
Nerve, he'd do just fine.
>
>
There are plenty of talentless hacks becoming famous these days.
So
> what? That's how the entertainment industry works.
You tickle a fancy
>
And get famous. That's why so many come and go, and few stay at the
>
Top for many years.
Many bands are not much different than mood rings
>
And pet rocks.
>
>>
I'm guessing here, Jim, but I'd imagine that at some point in the
>>
Past someone famous inspired you in some way to take up bass.
I
>> know that for me, McCartney and Harrison, and to a lesser degree
>>
Brian and Carl Wilson, inspired me.
I can't say the same for those
>>
Anonymous studio guys who toiled away on Frankie Avalon's and
>>
Fabian's hits.
>
>
I had no bass idols whatsoever.
To be honest I had been playing for
>
Years before I ever heard of Jaco and played several more years before
>
Ever listening to his stuff.
>
>
I just like bass.
My personality over the years tends to put me in
>
Positions crucial to the success of the endeavor.
Whether it's out
>
Front or behind the scenes is irrelevant.
>
>>
I'm not talking about studio musicians, who are apparently quite
>>
Content to toil on in anonymity.
I'm talking about bands like the
>>
Beach Boys, Beatles, Stones, Who, Queen, Pink Floyd, Sex Pistols,
>>
Police, U2, STP, Audioslave, etc.
Where the fans know who plays what
>>
Instrument, who writes the songs, etc., as well as who sings on
>>
Them. To me, its those people who inspire others to play, and I
>>
Happen to think that's a worthy thing.
>
>>
What fraction of Britney's fans do you think knows who plays bass on
>>
Her records? Better yet, what fraction of them are inspired to play
>>
Bass?
>
> So, you're saying American Idol is bad because whatever bands form to
>
Support the winners will not inspire other musicians to take up the
>
Instrument? Maybe I'm not following.
Sometimes I wonder whether you're being intentionally obtuse!
But I see
you're the kind of guy who's all trees and no forest.
Of course if you viewed the show as a harmless diversion, there'd be no
issue.
But in a way it's setting the tone for the music industry as a
whole.
The industry, of course, loves it because the show's doing part
of their work for them.
No need to take a gamble on someone who might
turn out to be unpopular.
By the way, I don't think it's likely that "bands form to support the
winners".
They'll get recording contracts, and more than likely the
musicians playing will be hired specifically for the recording and that
will be that.
|
|
Quote: :
> Sometimes I wonder whether you're being intentionally obtuse!
But I see
> you're the kind of guy who's all trees and no forest.
I don't get it.
>
Of course if you viewed the show as a harmless diversion, there'd be no
>
Issue. But in a way it's setting the tone for the music industry as a
>
Whole. The industry, of course, loves it because the show's doing part
>
Of their work for them.
No need to take a gamble on someone who might
>
Turn out to be unpopular.
First, if all 12 finalists got contracts, it would *still* be a drop in
the bucket when you look at all the new music that comes out every
single day.
It's not just new artists competing for the label's money.
Established bands have to prove themselves marketable with every album.
Around here the guitarist for the Gin Blossoms gives guitar lessons and
runs an open mic night.
By my count there are over 700 albums (all genres) being released this
WEEK according to Billboard:
http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/relea...jsp?rollDate=1
If you're claiming American Idol is having a major influence, it's up to
you to show it.
From where I sit the American Idol isn't having any
major influence on the industry as a whole.
Second, why should the record companies "gamble" as you say?
Like any
business, the bigger the risk, the higher the potential reward should
be.
Bands get signed because they have shown themselves marketable and
convinced someone there's a good chance of them being marketable on a
larger scale.
I'd say most new artists barely break even.
If American Idol provides an avenue for a lower risk candidate *and*
makes the producers profit along the way, I say more power to them.
Musicians like to bitch about the record companies, but I don't too many
mortgaging their house and chasing down investors to sell their music.
It's easy to bitch about somebody not "gambling" on you when it's not
your money at stake.
The distribution channel is there.
My band is on iTunes, Rhapsody and
Napster (Radiobox).
We have a website.
But you're not going to see me
take $100,000 out of my house to buy advertising and send people around
to radio stations to get them to play my music.
|
|
"Jim Carr" <newsgroups@azwebpages.com>
Wrote in message
news:F34Wj.8755$bX3.7446@newsfe08.phx...
>>
>>
Way to bring it down, dude.
>
>
I'm just getting a little tired of Jonathan.
He says I'm in his kill file,
>
So he only replies to my posts when he reads it in somebody else's reply.
>
He never writes it *to* me, just *about* me.
>
>
And it's the same thing.
Apparently I don't have any real opinions - I
>
Just express a differing opinion for my own amusement.
>
>
That kind of passive-aggressive, pansy-ass stuff gets on my nerves.
It's
> no wonder that in his last band the leader would throw lemon slices at him
>
On stage and disrespect him in so many other ways.
>
Oh Jim, you could never stay in my Kill file for long, you're good for a
chuckle every now and then.
I just keep waiting for something new from you,
but you refuse to deliver.
At least I can count on you for a dick remark.
There, I said something directly to you, it should make for a nice entry
in your diary.
-Jonathan
|
|
Quote: :
> "Jim Carr" <newsgroups@azwebpages.com>
Wrote in message
>
News:F34Wj.8755$bX3.7446@newsfe08.phx...
>>>
Way to bring it down, dude.
>>
I'm just getting a little tired of Jonathan.
He says I'm in his kill file,
>>
So he only replies to my posts when he reads it in somebody else's reply.
>>
He never writes it *to* me, just *about* me.
>>
>>
And it's the same thing.
Apparently I don't have any real opinions - I
>>
Just express a differing opinion for my own amusement.
>>
>>
That kind of passive-aggressive, pansy-ass stuff gets on my nerves.
It's
>> no wonder that in his last band the leader would throw lemon slices at him
>>
On stage and disrespect him in so many other ways.
>>
>
>
Oh Jim, you could never stay in my Kill file for long, you're good for a
>
Chuckle every now and then.
I just keep waiting for something new from you,
>
But you refuse to deliver.
At least I can count on you for a dick remark.
>
There, I said something directly to you, it should make for a nice entry
>
In your diary.
Dear Diary,
Today Jonathan finally noticed me.
FINALLY! It made me feel all funny
between my legs.
You know, like when you're climbing the rope in gym class.
|
|
|
|