Idol Worship

Everyone knows that American Idol is a huge hit. So huge that it's been exported all over the world. Pop Idol (the British version), Indian Idol, Vietnamese Idol.

I was never much into the Idol fad. Still amn't (aren't, isn't, ain't?). But I've been listening to The Tony Kornheiser Show, better known as the Tuesday Morning American Idol Quarterback Show and it's got me intrigued.

Why does this series succeed? First, why don't I watch it? There's something about watching reality TV shows that seems to reduce us to blithering idiots. Or at least, that's the sense I get when I think I want to watch a reality show. That, and I simply don't watch that much TV to begin with.

But Tony Kornheiser is a bright guy, and he watches it, so there must be some appeal.

Here's the gist of it, best I can figure. First, there's the mass appeal that anyone can try out. William Hung, noteworthy for his awful singing which still ended up landing him something of a music deal, got his start on American Idol. He started off in the initial round where good and bad are mixed together, just to show you how awful awful can be.

Once you get past that stage, then each week (or perhaps more often than that), singers pick a song and sing it. The usual panel of judges consists of the acerbic and British Simon Cowell, Randy Jackson, and Paula Abdul. They either praise or insult the singer depending on the performance. But the key is this. They don't decide who stays or goes. They hope to influence the vote by commenting on the quality of the singings. The audience, that's you and me, get to decide. You call in a special number, one for each singer.

Now, there are many factors a singer has to consider. How well do they sing? What songs best suit their personality? Do they sing in a style that might be too similar to someone else who is a better singer? If they sing a popular song, and almost always they are singing a cover of some song, then how will audience members react to their rendition of the song? How close should it be to the real thing? How much should they create their own version?

But the real key is this. Most singers sing well, but not fantastically. The format forces you to pass judgment on singers based on how well they sing. This is in contrast to, say, judging them on their ability to write a good song. Performance and personality are important.

If the singers were all uniformly excellent, then the average person might not be able to distinguish good and bad. The key is for the person watching to be able to hear the differences. And moreover, you must draw the distinction between one singer and another. And they all sing in a particular style. Thus, operatic singing wouldn't fly because the average American doesn't care to listen to opera, even if it was sung well.

This is the theater of the decently good, not of the highbrow extreme good, such as concert pianist, where a listener would strain to tell the difference between two performances. This isn't about the songwriting and how to write a catchy song people will like. Comparatively speaking, songwriting is hit and miss. One could reasonably argue that a good singer can sing well even if you care for the song.

So I was thinking, why is American Idol more successful than, say, Iron Chef? One problem with Iron Chef is that sound and images travel across the air. You can judge someone's singing and the way they look by watching television. On the other hand, you can't actually taste the food that the cooks are making. You never get that immediate reaction where you're eating the same food that the judges are eating.

I was wondering how difficult it would be to even approximate this? The closest I could imagine, and it's a stretch of the imagination, is a cooking robot. Somehow, you'd have the right ingredients, and then you'd download a program, and it would start to cook. When it was done, you'd eat. Now, if this were even remotely possible, you would never have to eat out. Fine foods could be made at home.

Let me sum up with why I think American Idol works, even as I don't watch it. First, the audience gets to participate. As much as Simon Cowell seems to rule the roost, the average person votes. As a communal activity, you can go to websites or have Idol parties where you actively compare notes with others. Should Sanjaya stay or go (he's Bengali, did you know that)? Is Melinda really all that modest? Will LaKisha win it all? Why don't the guys sing any better? Why aren't there any punk singers? Opera singers? Folks singing Broadway tunes?

And by slowly eliminating singers, it creates a sport out of it, where you, the viewer, get to pick. Who wins? We'll slowly find out!

And that creates a kind of uncertainty that you find with sports. Those who don't follow sports wonder why anyone cares about sports. It's just some random scores. Here, 90-77. Game. Why aren't you excited? Because you care about how the game unfolds. You want your team to win, but they're down by X points. Will they come back? I remember watching a Redskins game where they were down by like 12 points, and nothing was happening. There were maybe five minutes left and the announcer goes "They better hurry if they expect to do anything".

But they had done nothing all game long, and were going nowhere fast. Then, one deep touchdown, then another, and they were leading. Just when you thought it was a foregone conclusion, when a loss was imminent, and they come back. This happens rarely in sports, but when it happens, it's exciting, because you didn't expect it to work out that way.

American Idol isn't quite there, but it's good enough. You follow breathlessly waiting to see if the person you picked moves on. And they provide enough up close and personal segments that you get to "know" the person.

Or at least, that's how I think it works.

But now I figure there's more than meets the eye, and why even a bright guy like Tony can be swept under the spell of what seems like an idiotic premise.