Susan Boyle proves American Idol is a waste of time

I have been asked in the past why I dislike American Idol so much. I have explained it many times, but I think the recent debut album of Britain's Got Talent winner Susan Boyle makes it crystal clear.

Susan Boyle is not a beauty queen. That reason alone is likely why she has not been scooped up by a record label long before now. Because she wouldn't look sexy in a music video, and she isn't so young she couldn't drink in America. She is an average woman, with incredible talent.



Adam Lambert, and all the other winners of American Idol are virtually all young, good looking, and marketable to teens and young adults. They can be marketed via music videos, dressed in all manner of revealing or seductive clothing, and prance around a stage in mock acts of lacivity that just draws censors and media attention.



The difference between the 2? Talent.

There is no comparison of the American Idol winners and Susan Boyle (or another surprise winner in England Paul Potts who sings opera like a knockout punch). Not even Jennifer Hudson, who is quite good, can match her talent. But then again, American Idol isn't about talent. It's about making money.

American Idol is simply a way for people to prove that they can sell according to a set of preconceived list of attributes that American record companies find important. It's a cookie cutter mold of throw away acts that make a quick buck. They are flash in the pans that are about as important to record companies as last year's ratings are to American Idol - they only count if money is coming in.

Hell, the proof of the pudding had to be William Hung. He wasn't attractive, he couldn't sing, he couldn't even shake rythmically. But he got ratings out the buttocks. So he got a record deal, and made 2 albums before he was discarded like day old fish. His shelf life was longer than his talent, but he was a useful tool to rake in cash on a gimick.

But in Britain's Got Talent we see singers that aren't confined to just pop music. They aren't molded to quick sales and gimmicks. They aren't just a means to the next buck, but are actually able to do something special. Well at least sometimes if we are being honest.

That's the point though. The concept was to find people with talent that were overlooked for whatever reason. To give them a shot at living their hearts dream. Britain's Got Talent does that, American Idol just goes for the superficial.

Why in the world would I, or anyone, want to watch a bunch of people embarrass themselves (in the early portion), and then sell their creative souls to become just another forgettable name on the one hit wonder list? Even if they survive for a while, all they are is mediocre and pop tarts that can be replaced in a year.

If I am going to commit to watching regular people trying to make it big, I'd rather go out with friends to see a live performance. I'd rather see people trying to make it with their creative souls intact and enjoying being what they dreamed instead of the prefab creation of a bunch of accountant and statisticians. I want to see talent, not marketing.

American Idol is literally the worst of programming on television. It takes your brain cells and life and gives you back reguritated mash.

And by the way, I recommend the album of Susan Boyle. I may one day recommend Adam Lambert, if he is around in a year or 2 and has more to offer than gimmicks and the insta-fame of pop television fluff.

So Adam Lambert has lost American Idol

Considering all the hype and anticipation, I’m left with the same feeling I have every year after American Idol ends. Relief and a hope that it won’t be back again.

Separate of all that though I will mention 2 things. I caught a glimpse of a woman in a bikini, and some other woman that seemed to be battling her – who then exposed a bikini. There was no sound, and I don’t watch the show so I have no idea what it was all about (I was inbetween matches at my pool league) but if that was a regular event on American Idol, I just might watch it regularly – minus the sound.

The other thing is what I have started to hear about the Lambert loss. It seems that some are saying the loss was because Lambert might be gay. Which I think is stupid.

First, as I stated earlier this month, the question of Lambert’s sexual preferences have nothing to do with his ability. For anyone to juxapose sexuality with singing is wrong. In addition to that I will add what I stated before

“Adam Lambert should not win American Idol if his sole or main qualification is the perception of his sexuality. If his current position is being bolstered or altered due to the hype and mystery of his private life, which some want to use to advance a political agenda, then he must lose. It's just that simple.”

So if the only reason some think that Lambert lost was because he is whatever he is, then that means he is not a good enough singer. Such distractions should not exist about a singer doing their job. If you can daydream about these other questions while listening to him, then he was not good enough to win.

Second, I truly believe that if it was known that Lambert was gay then he likely would have won. Because such is the nature of Hollywood and the entertainment industry these days. The Perez Hilton incident, and the reaction of the media, has made it clear that the media would rather support a bias than dare to be fair. Thus if Lamert was gay, he would have won. And that would have been just as wrong as if he lost because he was gay.

Now I realize that I have no idea how anyone on Idol sounds. So I am speaking objectively about music and not this situation. Given. But I did hear one other theory that might explain the loss of Lambert.

Because of the contracts that the winner gets, and the ability of the runner-up to get a substantial contract as well, it makes pure business sense to have the most popular guy take second. It creates hype for both singers. I creates an environment where the battle will continue at least into the first album of each, reaping tons of money for the record companies.

Because lest you forget, American Idol is about business in every aspect. The goal at every step is to find a way to make more money for record labels. That goal, and the process does not end with a winner being declared. It just goes into another phase, which really brings in the profit. Controversy therefore is beneficial.

So did Lambert lose because he is whatever his sexual preference might be? No. He lost either because he wasn’t good enough, or it makes some executive (Simon Cowell I believe) significantly more money. Some things in life are just simple.

Will Adam Lambert win American Idol? If so, for what reason.

So here is a question that I recently was pondering. Does it matter if a contestant on American Idol is gay?

I personally find the question to be dumb. Seriously there should not be a question on this subject. Because it really does not matter. Not even in the slightest.

But it seems that there are some out there that find this to be important. Why is quite beyond me. I suppose they are the universe balancing out all those incensed by the response of Miss California. Which itself was an issue that should not have grown to the extent it has.

No matter the private sexual preferences of Adam Lambert, he is a singer. Since I take it that he is in the running to win American Idol (I don't follow the show as I like my brain cells) I would assume he is quite good. Thus until technology exists where listening to music will instigate direct sexual intercourse with the music, only his voice is important to the competition.

Still there is a flip side to all of this. Adam Lambert should not win American Idol if his sole or main qualification is the perception of his sexuality. If his current position is being bolstered or altered due to the hype and mystery of his private life, which some want to use to advance a political agenda, then he must lose. It's just that simple.

Hollywood loves to show a face of ultra-liberal beliefs. It glorifies those that agree with it's ideals and/or supports them. And those that diverge in any way from its dictates find themselves shunned. Just read what the late Ron Silver stated. Look at how the major media backed Perez Hilton in his attack on Miss California.

This of course flies in the face of what Hollywood does. Like the disparity of people of color in front of and behind the cameras. Plus the promotion of various stereotypes, like the gangsta rap genre as an example, without shame. And the non-stop love affair with President Obama, as opposed to the critiques of virtually every President beforehand in my lifetime.

Hollywood would love to have an openly gay, or bisexual, American Idol winner. It matches the showboat of ideals that it flourishes daily. It flies in the face of those that have whatever issue on sexuality (which is itself wrong), and reinforces the views that caused Perez Hilton to attack Miss California over.

By the way, the actions of Perez Hilton were upsetting. To attack someone for having an opinion you don't like is no less wrong if the person is Archie Bunker or Perez Hilton. It's a small minded way to dismiss someone, for something they should be free to choose. The First Amendment works both ways.

But back to my point. Who cares what Adam Lambert does in his private life. Beyond selling extra teen magazines, there is nothing worth knowing. And anyone that would judge him, either way, on that basis is biased. Either he is a good enough singer or not.

So will Lambert win American Idol? I could care less. That is up until the point where winning is more of a political statement than proof of ability and performance.