Years ago in a former life I watched the first season of American Idol under duress. I didn't like it then and have no use for it now, although some of the initial episodes where people think they're the second coming of Josh Groban or Celine Dion are pretty amusing. At root of my problem is that, in my opinion, it's absolutely impossible to determine which singer is the best among a bunch of talented singers, especially since personal preference factors into it. Short of having a field full of tone-deaf singers -- hello William Hung -- with one Jennifer Hudson in their midst, I find it incomprehensible how it can be determined that Carrie Underwood is better than Chris Daughtry, or Clay Aiken is better than Kelly Clarkson. Each in his or her own way is talented.
Karen had an interest in two other shows (notice the past tense used, please): The Voice and Dancing With the Stars. Even she's soured a little on them, one more than the other, but she retains an interest because, well, she's gifted and creative where I'm not. It's really that simple. Frankly, I think they were obsolete the minute they aired, but I'm a cynic.
The Voice has as its hook four judges who sit with their backs to contestants who sing for all their worth hoping one of them, at least, will turn around and offer to be their voice coach to mentor them to stardom. That part of the show is about as pure as it gets. The idea is that without being able to see the person, no superficial reasons for choosing a singer will enter into a judge's determination for picking that singer. In theory, that's fine. The problem is the theory only lasts for the weeding out process, because after the initial rounds, the judges all view the singers as they go through a battery of tests to determine who advances and ultimately wins the contest. Moreover, once the judges have chosen their teams, the judges choose who win sing-offs (is that like one-on-one in basketball?) and then the audience at home and in the studio choose who stays and who goes home. The wholesome premise that it's the voice that determines the winner is now out the window, since everyone including the judges is watching the singers.
On top of that, I return to my original premise: How does one pick a winner? Over the last couple of weeks, Karen's been championing a couple of singers who, I have to admit, have the chops to record music and be successful. These people can sing. But the genre of the music they record as much as anything will determine their success. And in some celebrated instances arising from Idol -- notably the aforementioned Jennifer Hudson and Chris Daughtry -- not winning was no impediment to a successful career. In fact, only two Idol winners have the kind of success anticipated of winners.
So from that perspective, I think the show has a very narrow utility.
Dancing With the Stars is even worse, or sillier, from where I sit. Long criticized for bringing on C-List celebrities, the show deviates far from what is supposed to be its essence. Sure, the contestants have to master ballroom dances like the foxtrot, waltz, cha cha cha, rumba, tango and what not, but then they've injected fusion and freestyle which, from what I remember from my ballroom class many moons ago in my last semester of undergrad, weren't part of the list. Then there's the costuming: Women wear as little as possible, men go shirtless whenever they can. And the props, the props! Nothing says ballroom dancing better than putting in silly props more appropriate on a Broadway stage.
Some of the contestants are so bad that it's arguable they weren't even born with two left feet. Some, like last night's winner, are ringers, pure and simple. Whatever the merits of the dancing, the show's a joke when viewed through the prism of competition.
Then there's the product placement. This Dancing shares with Voice: Given the fervent and loyal following among people with too much time on their hands and unlimited texting packages, recording artists are flocking to these shows for what amounts to a free commercial for their albums. Coldplay, Ariana Grande, Cher -- I can't remember all of the singers who have appeared. While they're singing, more scantily-clad dancers twirl around in front of them dancing as if they were at the Copacabana and not in a ballroom. What was supposed to be a showcase of ballroom dancing has devolved into an orgy of music and dancing that has very little to do with ballrooom dancing and everything to do with marketing products and people. The Voice is guilty of this as well, although not as outlandishly, making these shows -- and their errant progenitor Idol -- perverse mutations of what is being advertised.
Every once in awhile, something surprising and worthwhile arises from these shows: A beautiful performance of dancing, a tremendous vocalist catching fire. By and large, however, these shows have gone down the path of Friends. The first season of Friends was a revelation. It was fresh, unique, fun. Then, once it became aware of its popularity, it got caught up in its own cuteness and resorted to anything that would augment its popularity, knowing that it had a captive audience whose powers of discrimination were woefully lacking. The same thing has happened to Dancing and Voice.
The Voice has as its moderator the friendly but wooden Carson Daly. I'm not sure what his claim to fame is, but he's a likeable but stiff host. He'd be great to have as a friend, I suspect, but his forte is not hosting a show.
Tom Bergeron, on the other hand, is a hoot. Were Dancing filled with more scenes of him hosting, it might be on to something. Frankly, Mr. Bergeron should have a talk show. He's incredibly quick-witted and very observant. He knows how to host and is beyond capable at his job. Would that Dancing took its cue from him.
Karen's very thoughtful about watching these shows.
She lets me catch up on my reading.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
No comments:
Post a Comment