Why 'Idol' outshines all its rivals
Like most of television's big hits, "American Idol" makes it look easy.
Invite people to sing, give a prize to the one who sings best. How hard can that be?
For the answer, we might want to check with the hordes of TV producers who have created shows that follow the same idea and never come close to the multibillion-dollar "Idol" payoff.
The informal catch phrase for "American Idol," which kicks off its sixth season with a two-hour gala on Fox tomorrow night, is Follow your dream.
Equally appropriate would be It's harder than it looks - a notion that might be seconded by winners like Kelly Clarkson and Taylor Hicks who clearly resent the notion that winning "Idol" is a random bolt of luck, like winning the raffle at the state fair.
Doing a TV show right is very much like singing a song right, and as "Idol" proves twice a week, every well-sung tune is surrounded with a hundred others butchered and left for dead.
For every Carrie Underwood in those long "Idol" audition lines, you could fill stadiums with the William Hungs.
At its core, "American Idol" is really no more than a slick version of the Major Bowes and Ted Mack amateur hours of the 1930s, whose alumni include the likes of Frank Sinatra.
Moreover, if "Idol" lasts 100 years, it's unlikely to produce anything close to the roster of winners Apollo Theater amateur nights have been delivering since 1934 - artists like James Brown, Michael Jackson, Gladys Knight and Luther Vandross.
However much fun it is to hear Simon Cowell turn snarky, chasing tuneless singers back home was even more entertaining at the Apollo, where Porto Rico ran on stage in funny suits firing a starter's pistol.
No matter. "Idol" has become the most lucrative amateur night of them all, brilliantly promoting and marketing itself into a package far richer than the sum of its components.
It's also masterfully produced. As contestants work their way through the process, "Idol" uses TV technology to preserve and spotlight the right moments, the ones when contestants are particularly funny, vulnerable, nervous or just human.
"Idol" also never forgets that every scene must channel the viewer toward the final prize, helping create the ever-building rhythm that pretenders miss.
It's an old story in the TV biz. When "Gunsmoke" and "Bonanza" were No.1, Westerns popped up everywhere. Years later, "Seinfeld" inspired dozens of sitcoms built on the style of a standup comic.
Simple, basic and easy, right? So how many of the imitators do we remember?
How many record companies tried to create another Britney Spears because it seemed to require so little skill? How many movie studios figured anyone could get rich from a cheap goofball flick like "American Pie"? How many radio guys thought all they had to do was talk dirty to be the next Howard Stern?
No, "American Idol" isn't easy. It just makes it look that way.
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertain...p-411596c.html
Linear Mode
