06-11-2012 04:07 PM
I know the producers ( and of course Simon when he was a judge and to some extent Randy) keep trying to send the message that AI is all about a singing contest. They may want it to be a singing contest, but in reality the voters have said otherwise. Many of the winners are not technically brilliant singers, but they have something much better: real talent! A singer's range and ability to do runs are not enough to become successful musical artists. The best ones play at least one instrument, write at least some of their own songs and express undeniable passion for what they are singing. They connect with the audience. You can tell who feels the music, and who is just trying to show that they can hit ridiculous notes or hold the notes for minutes at a time, even if doing so is not adding anything to the performance. Some of the contestants who were so highly touted as "the best singers" were more like singing acrobats than true artists. The voters have repeatedly sent the message that they want the whole package, not just the singing ability. Again, this may not have been the intent of the show when it was created, but that's basically what's happened. Then again, if the producers really wanted perfect singing to be the sole criterion to win the competition, they probably would have called the show "American Singer!"
06-11-2012 04:54 PM
If American Idol were 'just' a singing contest, it would not be based on viewer votes. If it were 'just' a singing contest a bunch of singing teachers would 'judge' and decide who advances and who wins. And it would have some of the lowest ratings ever on network television. It is a singing contest in that they are all singers. But America votes on whose performances they like the most. Only a portion of the voters are voting on who they think is 'technically' the best singer. Most of us have no idea what 'pitchy' even means. We just know if we like a performance or not.
06-11-2012 06:03 PM
It does seem that people vote for the best performer, rather than the best singer (from a technical point of view). And as many others have pointed out, some of the greatest musical artists ever were not technically great singers. Many of them would probably not even survive the first week of Hollywood. Can you imagine Bob Dylan auditioning? You simply can't judge a performer by technical skills alone. Unfortunately there are a lot of complainers who think that the "wrong" person won because another contestant had a bigger vocal range and wasn't "pitchy." Sometimes being pitchy adds character to the song. Not when it's really off key, but when it's full of emotion.
06-11-2012 06:04 PM
06-11-2012 06:50 PM
I know the producers ( and of course Simon when he was a judge and to some extent Randy) keep trying to send the message that AI is all about a singing contest. They may want it to be a singing contest, but in reality the voters have said otherwise. Many of the winners are not technically brilliant singers, but they have something much better: real talent! A
Say What? I've been watching this show and voting since 2006 and it's not a singing contest?, Well shame on me..I'm just kidding here so don't get all bent ok...
But not everyone has to be brilliant to be good.. This show has produced so many wonderful singing artists that it's no wonder it's still so popular after 11 seasons. I don't think it should be taken so serious and so personal
Taylor, David H, Kris, Lee, Paul, Hollie, Paul 7. Fan of the WGWG Team SeXYist!
06-11-2012 07:30 PM
06-11-2012 07:52 PM
I have not seen any contestants recite a poem yet.
06-11-2012 08:25 PM
06-11-2012 08:33 PM
"hold notes for minutes at a time"?? You can't exactly do that on Idol since the performances are only a minute and half.
The reason why the OP said it isn't a singing competition. You can just go up on stage and hold a note for a minute and a half and you don't even have to sing. LOL