And so it begins ...
All right, American Idol is on right now, but as usual I'm waiting to watch it -- on tape -- later on. So that means that things are cycling back around again. So it's time for me to start posting about it again. For a while, at least.
And yes, I know it's been on a while, but I've learned not to post anything about the auditions or Hollywood Week shows. Because there's just no point. You never see half of the people who end up in the "semi-final" round in either type of show. And the ones you do see are the most annoying ones.
But before things begin in earnest -- with the postworthy material -- I did want to make a couple of comments on this year's changes.
First, what is up with the Final 36? Why after all this time are they increasing the number of people who make it through to this stage of the game? Is it because there is a higher caliber of performer? Well, there had better be evidence of that.
So the fact that there are 36 people in this stage of the game leads me to my other point: the determination of the Top 12. It seems that they're implementing a strange blending of the original voting process and the process from the last couple of year. Specifically, the 36 have been divided into 3 groups of 12, and each week the 12 perform. In the results shows, the top male, top female, and the person who received the 2nd highest number of votes move on to the Top 12. Then they will bring back the original "wild card" show where the judges will select at least a few of the performers, and then they will do the same thing with the results to round out the 12.
And this baffles me. Because they're restoring exactly the problem that I always had with the original style. Namely, taking only the top people from these performance shows -- who most often didn't deserve to win because others performed better -- because they garnered the most online votes. And we would never see the really good ones again because they were invariably never picked.
I thought that the last couple of years there were actually being fairer (even with the imposed gender split) because they were gradually winnowing out the lowest vote getters each week. So the good people had a better chance to make it into the final round.
My other problem with the way they're doing it this year is that they are still imposing the gender balance -- at least in theory. But my question is ... what happens if (for example) all the boys outperform the girls and get more votes. So you've got the 2 top vote getters who would be male, but then the highest female vote-getter gets puts through even though she might be somewhere in the middle of the pack. Is that fair to everyone who got more votes? All because you want to make sure there is an even gender balance in the Top 12?
(And don't think I've got a gender preference because I don't. The question applies in the reverse -- if the boys are outperformed in toto by the girls.)
So. Having cleared my conscience, I think I can now move forward with the season in full later on this evening.
And yes, I know it's been on a while, but I've learned not to post anything about the auditions or Hollywood Week shows. Because there's just no point. You never see half of the people who end up in the "semi-final" round in either type of show. And the ones you do see are the most annoying ones.
But before things begin in earnest -- with the postworthy material -- I did want to make a couple of comments on this year's changes.
First, what is up with the Final 36? Why after all this time are they increasing the number of people who make it through to this stage of the game? Is it because there is a higher caliber of performer? Well, there had better be evidence of that.
So the fact that there are 36 people in this stage of the game leads me to my other point: the determination of the Top 12. It seems that they're implementing a strange blending of the original voting process and the process from the last couple of year. Specifically, the 36 have been divided into 3 groups of 12, and each week the 12 perform. In the results shows, the top male, top female, and the person who received the 2nd highest number of votes move on to the Top 12. Then they will bring back the original "wild card" show where the judges will select at least a few of the performers, and then they will do the same thing with the results to round out the 12.
And this baffles me. Because they're restoring exactly the problem that I always had with the original style. Namely, taking only the top people from these performance shows -- who most often didn't deserve to win because others performed better -- because they garnered the most online votes. And we would never see the really good ones again because they were invariably never picked.
I thought that the last couple of years there were actually being fairer (even with the imposed gender split) because they were gradually winnowing out the lowest vote getters each week. So the good people had a better chance to make it into the final round.
My other problem with the way they're doing it this year is that they are still imposing the gender balance -- at least in theory. But my question is ... what happens if (for example) all the boys outperform the girls and get more votes. So you've got the 2 top vote getters who would be male, but then the highest female vote-getter gets puts through even though she might be somewhere in the middle of the pack. Is that fair to everyone who got more votes? All because you want to make sure there is an even gender balance in the Top 12?
(And don't think I've got a gender preference because I don't. The question applies in the reverse -- if the boys are outperformed in toto by the girls.)
So. Having cleared my conscience, I think I can now move forward with the season in full later on this evening.