Remote Control: Is 'American Idol' Really What It Pretends To Be?
By Ronda Racha Penrice, AOL BlackVoices columnist
I know it's a bit blasphemous to admit, but I am not a die-hard 'American Idol' fan. It's cool. I catch it from time to time, but it's just not must-watch television for me. Maybe that's because I see it as little more than 'Star Search' with only one category. Regardless of how casually I feel about the show, there is no denying its impact. So, there was really no way I could ignore that the new season is about to start, especially after what happened last year.
If you missed it, apparently perfectly decent black singers were being voted off in favor of lesser talented white ones. Why this surprised us is beyond me. Nonetheless, Star Jones, an avid viewer, raised her voice but no one listened until Sir Elton John (who, in my book, always does right by us) raised his, which just goes to show you how America works -- even in a talent competition. If we, as black people, complain about unfair treatment it takes a crowd of us but, in many instances, one beloved white celebrity can raise his or her voice and then the offenders will at least listen. In the end, it didn't matter (or maybe it did?) because the truly best singer in the bunch, Fantasia, claimed victory.
Racial complaints aside, is 'American Idol' truly what it intends to be? As many platinum albums as the three winners (Kelly, Ruben and Fantasia) and one runner-up Clay Aiken have scored, most people still tune in to the show to see the really awful singers get crushed. Let's face it, most of America is not interested in a kinder, gentler Simon Cowell. We love it when he's nasty. Are we all just naturally haters? Do we just want to see the dreamers (however misguided they may be) crushed in a public forum? Or even better, just a good fight? After all, we seem to rally around singers who stand up to Simon like fellow alcoholics in an AA meeting.
Simon's notorious nastiness in the face of Randy Jackson's evenness and Paula Abdul's sometimes way-too-kind demeanor struck me as I watched Mona Scott on 'The Road To Stardom With Missy Elliott.' Of the three judges on that show, she captivated me the most. No, she was not overly kind; quite the opposite. Her assessments of the potential star's talents came across as professional. Unlike Simon, her ego seemed to be in check. She didn't pander nor did she coddle. But she wasn't condescending either. She was just straight, no chaser, to borrow a cliché.
There's no denying that music is in big trouble. I don't have to name names. The real question, however, isn't who is and isn't voting. 'American Idol' can change its voting system all it wants and, yes, it can deliver a talented singer or two, but can it change the music industry? So far, the answer has been no. I don't see any record labels rushing to sign the next Rubens or Fantasias. Just look at Beyoncé and Usher. Yes, they are talented. But would that talent stand on its own without the much shown abs and the really sexy dresses?
Entertainers have always taken it a notch above. We expect them to be stylish. We expect them to be a lot of things that we are not, to have a lot of things that we don't. The real point that I'm making with both Beyoncé‚ and Usher in the face of this latest installment of 'American Idol,' and even with 'The Road to Stardom With Missy Elliott,' is that stars are groomed. They don't happen in a few weeks of voting. Sometimes it takes years. Michael Jackson, legal problems aside, could not have become a superstar without putting in serious time with the Jackson 5. The same goes for Ms. Super Supreme Diana Ross. Even Usher and Beyoncé have been at this game since children. They both appeared on 'Star Search' and lost.
I am still going to check into 'American Idol' from time to time as I always do. And I'm certain that I will enjoy what I see. The only difference is I will view it for what it is: a nice talent show and not the savior of the music industry.
Jan. 18, 2005