[besson3c]

In the category of people being incredibly dumb to the point of being funny:

Angry Mom FREAKS OUT At 'American Idol' Results (VIDEO)


Gotta like the dude in the background too

[Oneota]

Aww, video removed by the user. Oh well. Life will find a way to struggle onward, I'm sure.

[Wiskedjak]

Fortunately, nothing on the Internet ever really goes away.
YouTube - Mom's American Idol Finale Reaction

[msuper69]

The phrase "white trash" comes to mind.

Or "People of Wal-Mart".

[downinflames68]

That's just sad. I feel sorry for the south.

[Cold Warrior]

money quote: Oh God my whole life is ruined.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

money quote: Oh God my whole life is ruined.

She's probobly telling the truth, but I doubt American Idol had anything to do with it.

[OldManMac]

A perfect example of what's driving this country down. Read Empire of Illusion, by Chris Hedges.

[tooki]

Don’t more people watch and vote for American Idol than they do in presidential elections?

[bstone]

The video has been removed by the user. Got a better link?

[Cold Warrior]

Originally Posted by bstone 

The video has been removed by the user. Got a better link?

third post

[Jawbone54]

Saying this lady represents the South is like saying the cast of Jersey Shore represent the Northeast.

Wow, that was difficult to watch...

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Sad watching white trash with metal illness.

Poor kids have to live with her.

[JellyBeen]

The ship is going down and they are dragging us down with them. Sigh.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

Oh God my whole life is ruined.

Indeed.

[Shaddim]

Must have been some slim pickings this year on Idol. He's rather piss poor compared to Kurt Nilsen.

YouTube - kurt nilsen beautiful day
YouTube - Lee DeWyze "Beautiful Day" 3rd song American Idol Top 2

Maybe I'm being unfair, Kurt is the best pure male vocalist to come out in the last 15 years.

[besson3c]

Here's a question about these sorts of shows and how we talk about talent...

What is talent exactly, and how does it differ from appeal? If talent is purely about the difficulty of doing something, do the performers get on shows like this if the mass appeal isn't there, say with virtuosic jazz or classical dudes (or rock dudes, or whatever)? I'm assuming not if the appeal isn't also there, and in pointing this out I'm not criticizing the show or making any real statement other than it seems difficult to separate talent from appeal.

If it is difficult to separate talent from appeal, are shows like this a popularity contest, or a real measure of talent?

[Shaddim]

Well, I do have something to say about that. I mentioned Nilsen before, and the first time I heard him was in my car and my wife popped in one of his CDs. It wasn't really my style of music but I was floored by his voice. Later that night we came back home and I had to look him up, I was more than a little surprised. THAT voice came from him?

Could he have won American Idol, even though he's 3x the singer of anyone else that's been on the show? I have my doubts. He suffered from Christopher Cross syndrome, and still does to an extent, an amazing vocalist who wasn't blessed with a face to match.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Well, I do have something to say about that. I mentioned Nilsen before, and the first time I heard him was in my car and my wife popped in one of his CDs. It wasn't really my style of music but I was floored by his voice. Later that night we came back home and I had to look him up, I was more than a little surprised. THAT voice came from him?

Could he have won American Idol, even though he's 3x the singer of anyone else that's been on the show? I have my doubts. He suffered from Christopher Cross syndrome, and still does to an extent, an amazing vocalist who wasn't blessed with a face to match.

I wasn't picking on Nilsen in particular, I was asking the question in a general way, but let's use him as an example to further expound upon my questioning...

How would one measure "talent" of somebody like Nilsen vs. an opera singer, a jazz singer, country singer, or any other kind of singer? If you had judges who were extremely authoritative on the matter and you had contestants that sang in each of these respective styles and the judges were floored by each of them, what would happen then?

At some point there is a conflict between appeal and talent with assigning labels such as "best" or "most talented" to music like this. There is the issue of not really being able to make apples vs. oranges comparison (as per my above hypothetical scenario), and also the question of whether somebody can be considered talented if the appeal isn't there... In the latter case, less popular/appealing art forms will probably always get the short end of the stick.

Also, every once in a while I hear about people that win these sorts of contests by what appears to be either politics or by tricks that those in the inner circles of the genre might call superficial. For instance, I'm a jazz musician. A couple/few years ago Herbie Hancock's album "River" won the album of the year award. It was a great album, but he's been making good albums for years, and some would say that River wasn't his best. Whether or not it was his best is a matter of opinion, but as far as recognizing his talents Herbie Hancock has been Herbie Hancock for many years now. I would say that there was definitely some politics involved in this, trying to look fair, appreciative and savvy - something like that...

In short, these sorts of competitions and labels are always very problematic for a whole host of reasons.

[besson3c]

I will also say that different genres have different technical barriers to overcome...

For instance, if you want to make a living as a violin soloist, you are expected to be a virtuoso on your instrument, and more so than the next guy, as otherwise why would anybody pay attention? When we go to hear a violin soloist we expect note perfectness before we even judge musicality. We expect every note to be in tune, attacked perfectly, released perfectly, we expect a wonderful sound, control, bow and finger technique, precision, control, coordination, and many other technical things. All of this is a prerequisite to the actual music making - it is very hard to get people to pay attention to how you approach making music if you play these violin solos out of tune, for instance.

In other genres, the barriers are different. It is okay to have a few flaws in another genre, it is okay to have even more in another - we can overlook certain things, as they don't detract from our enjoyment, they are not barriers to being able to communicate and express musically.

Without trying to disparage Nilsen's talents, if you want to be technically accurate, it is probably safe to say that there is a greater set of challenges to mastering a complicated violin solo than there is to signing like him and signing music like this in general. This doesn't mean that that classical violin solo is "better", it doesn't really mean much of anything other than the different genres come with different technical challenges to music making.

It would obviously be pretty boring if American Idol was just about virtuosic classical music or the like, hence the blurry line between talent and appeal. Appeal is fine, but it is purely subjective, therein lies the problem. American Idol and contests like it are pretty much a popularity contest.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

money quote: Oh God my whole life is ruined.

That's what happens when you bet the rent money on a stupid tv show.

[el chupacabra]

… .

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It would obviously be pretty boring if American Idol was just about virtuosic classical music or the like, hence the blurry line between talent and appeal. Appeal is fine, but it is purely subjective, therein lies the problem. American Idol and contests like it are pretty much a popularity contest.

You're missing the point as to what xxxxx Idol is. It's cleverly-disguised promotion - by the time the winner is announced, you've got yerself a ready-made fanbase ready to buy the resulting album.

And you're missing the point as to how the music biz works. Most people (outside specific niche genres) don't have any musical taste whatsoever - they buy whatever we tell them to buy. It's very subtle but it's there.

[Oisín]

And you're missing the point as to how the music biz works. Most people (outside specific niche genres) don't have any musical taste whatsoever - they buy whatever we tell them to buy. It's very subtle but it's there.

Actually, I’d broaden that a bit: very nearly everyone, including specific niche genres and musicians themselves, have little music taste that’s truly their own—they (and by ‘they’, I mean ‘we’) buy and are inspired by whatever we’re influenced to buy and be inspired by, within the scope of our own preferences. I don’t think it’s any different for lovers of opera, jazz, or 1930s saxophone death-metal than it is for Britney Spears lovers; it’s just different people doing the influencing.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

Actually, I’d broaden that a bit: very nearly everyone, including specific niche genres and musicians themselves, have little music taste that’s truly their own—they (and by ‘they’, I mean ‘we’) buy and are inspired by whatever we’re influenced to buy and be inspired by, within the scope of our own preferences. I don’t think it’s any different for lovers of opera, jazz, or 1930s saxophone death-metal than it is for Britney Spears lovers; it’s just different people doing the influencing.

I think we're talking on different levels here. What I meant (in terms of how you've phrased it) is that most people outside specific genres don't have any preference. But you're right - even most of those dedicated to specific genres and actually have preferences have little taste of their own.

I guess we could view it like so:

<--------------- A --------------->|x|<---- B ---->|<- C ->

Where:
A = those without preference or taste (the unwashed masses buying Britney's greatest hits).
B = those with preference but without taste (those firmly in a musical style/subculture who buy almost anything tagged as belonging to their subculture).
C = those with preference and taste (those who transcend niche and "like what they like").
x = divider between mainstream (i.e. mostly pop chart stuff) and niche.

I could pee in a bucket over a four-on-the-floor and sell to group A (and probably halfway into a style subset of group B, if the sound fits the niche) if the marketing is right (i.e. it was on xxxxx Idol, etc.).
This is the point of xxxxx Idol - sell crap to group A.

(I know, the model is slightly off. But it's a bit too complicated without commissioning a 3D model. )

[Oisín]

^ I’m disappointed you didn’t make a 3DS Max rotating 3D model.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

^ I’m disappointed you didn’t make a 3DS Max rotating 3D model.

What, and expose all my secrets?

BTW, I'm curious about this "1930s saxophone death-metal". Are we talking something like this? Because I reckon I'd be up for a bit of that.

[Oisín]

It was a completely random, pulled-out-of-my-head genre made up of the most clashing genres I could think of, and I’m not in the least surprised that the Internet has long since both invented and forgotten it again.

(I liked the song better before he started, erm, ‘singing’. Growling never was my thing.)

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

(I liked the song better before he started, erm, ‘singing’. Growling never was my thing.)

Nonsense! You love it! You just need more practise.

[Leonard]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Here's a question about these sorts of shows and how we talk about talent...

What is talent exactly, and how does it differ from appeal? If talent is purely about the difficulty of doing something, do the performers get on shows like this if the mass appeal isn't there, say with virtuosic jazz or classical dudes (or rock dudes, or whatever)? I'm assuming not if the appeal isn't also there, and in pointing this out I'm not criticizing the show or making any real statement other than it seems difficult to separate talent from appeal.

If it is difficult to separate talent from appeal, are shows like this a popularity contest, or a real measure of talent?

To figure out what talent is you watch this show America's Got Talent on TV.com

I watched it last year, and even after watching that show, you have to wonder, what does classify as talent? I would think there has to be some appeal to it. On the show, it seems if you got the audience interested, you went on to the next stage.

The show had everything from singers, dance acts, acrobatic acts, magicians, opera singers, dog acts, etc...

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Nonsense! You love it! You just need more practise.

And you somehow managed to find something that was from bloody Skum.

(In case you didn’t know it—and I suspect you didn’t—Skum is sort of the Danish version of the CBBC.)

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

And you somehow managed to find something that was from bloody Skum.

Things just flow. It's all synchronous.

Originally Posted by Oisín 

(In case you didn’t know it—and I suspect you didn’t—Skum is sort of the Danish version of the CBBC.)

Blimey. If CBBC is full of stuff like that I'm going to have to go buy a TV.

(You're right. All of I know of Denmark is that (1) it's cuter than my country, (2) it's populated by multilinguists with t-shirt habits, (3) Helena Christensen and (4) Rie Rasmussen.)

[Oisín]

Well, it’s aimed at children a bit older than the CBBC. It’s basically the DR ‘station’ (really just a web site and some programmes on the regular DR) aimed at tweens and young teens.

Incidentally, cigarfar.dk (=cigardaddy.dk), the co-sponsor of the video, is apparently a blog of signs slaughtering the Danish language, and is quite hilarious.

[hadocon]

Dark sided!!!