The Problem with American Idol

Allow me to be blunt: I despise American Idol. I have hated it since the day it started airing. When people began congregating around water coolers to discuss their favorite contestants, I was a safe distance away, trying to figure out what all the fuss was about. I have never understood the appeal of the show, its judges (Paula Abdul, you should probably lay off the drugs), or its contestants. Above all else, I have never understood the appeal of the music itself, which is polished to a sickening shine - the glare is painful.

But let's pretend for a moment that the music is the least offensive part of the show - I do not care to bore you with musical dissection of sterile pop, anyway. My biggest issue with the show is the culture it has created and the impression it has made on the country's music consumers and performers. Interestingly, the values that American Idol espouses are similar to those that have contributed to the ruin of major labels over the last ten years or so. In order to understand this, though, we need to take a look at the way talent was handled and developed during the golden era of pop music.

The main purpose of a label has always been consistent. It seeks out talent, provides that talent with necessary resources to develop musically, and promotes the talent to the masses. In the past, the labels relied heavily on the quality of the music to do the promotion for itself - radio stations were flooded with singles, and the songs that did the best were rewarded. Sure, there were other factors at work - "payola," management (both competent and incompetent), and press - but the beginning of the major label era was one marked by democracy. Such was the magic of the golden era - by and large, the best music received the most airplay, sales, and notoriety.

By 1979, this would all start to change. The Buggles famously lamented the situation in their hit, "Video Killed the Radio Star." No longer would the quality of music alone define success - in the new era, artists would be forced to place equal emphasis on their image as well. Madonna is a fine example of an artist who took advantage of the situation - flanked by dancers and elaborately choreographed stage shows, she was one of the first to pioneer the "new way." Labels also began to take advantage of the situation, realizing that while musical talent could often be elusive and difficult to control, image was more easily manufactured and manipulated. It was a slippery slope, but one that majors were glad to go down. As the years went on, the music part of the equation became less and less important to labels. The last ten years of mainstream pop music are testament to this - we've seen an influx of records made by "artists" whose images are more recognizable than their music. Britney Spears says hello from her mental hospital bed.

Where does American Idol fit into the equation? It imposes the new business model on the public. The show rewards those contestants whose images are most palatable to the public - not necessarily those who are most talented. Second of all, it reinforces the fact that corporations - not artists themselves - are in control of the music we hear. Mainstream artists no longer make themselves in garages and smoky clubs - they are made by faceless corporations and "industry professionals" based on the results of screen tests and public opinion polls having nothing to do with music. The show suggests to the public that a career in music has nothing to do with hard work or singular talent - rather, it is a "gift from the gods" based on general likability.

Herein lies the biggest problem with American Idol: it is the most visible symptom of a sick culture that chooses its mass art in the same way we chose our high school class presidents.