I've pretty much been a fan of American Idol for the past 6 years. This year, however, it hasn't appealed to me as much. It's not a matter of the talent (although some folks would say "lack of", but not me all the time). Simon's unnecessarily brutal evaluations have worn thin for me. I don't often disagree with his opinions...just the caustic manner in which he delivers them. I don't advocate giving them false praise and hollow patronizing. But there is a way in which to deliver the message that isn't so brutal. These are relatively young folks. Yes, you have to have a thick skin in this tough business. But, that skin develops over time, not overnight. It is rather easy to discount most of what Paula says...mostly because she doesn't say much of anything that means anything. For my money, Randy is most often pretty accurate with his evaluations of the performances.

I seem to be one of the few here who think the talent isn't all that bad in many cases. I have seen comments here such as "Is this the best young talent America has to offer? What a shame!", or something to that affect. I say, no, of course it isn't. It is, in the opinion of the show, the most talented of those who auditioned. There are many, many young performers who are as good, or better, than most of the contestants on American Idol. But, they didn't show up for the audtions! Why? Who knows. Too busy with prior musical commitments, no funds to get there, scared to audition, too old, too young, no parental approval if minors...could be anything. Regardless, they didn't show up!

I think many who diss the program aren't fully aware if its intent. Simply put, it allows voters to compare the contestants against one another...not the rest of the young talent in America...rather, against one another. As I said, there are probably thousands of young entertainers equally or more talented. But, they didn't show up to be considered! If you vote in a local contest of some sort, your friend, brother, sister, whomever, may be significantly more talented than anyone in the contest. But you can't vote for them if they didn't enter. Same principal on American Idol...just at a more visible level.

As far as those who get upset because these folks haven't necessarily "paid their dues". I don't buy into that completely. Yes, I do agree that perhaps they haven't paid as many dues as you, me and a lot of other folks. But, of those who make that complaint, would they have turned down a similar opportunity when they were that young and had no other opportunity to be heard...an opportunity for national and, to a lsser degree, international exposure...millions and millions of potential fans? I doubt it. The "paying your dues" approach doesn't reflect real life. I wish that were true, but it isn't. As the old adage goes..."Life isn't fair!". For the most part, folks who are succesful attained that succes because they took advantage of the opportunities when they were presented. There may have been dozens of other folks more deserving at the time. But, do you think he/she said "Hmmm, Bill and Sally and John are more deserving than me for this opportunity for succes. I think I'll pass and let it slide to them." Again, I doubt it.

At least these folks on AI had the gumption (that's word we don't use often enough), perseverence and tenacity to seize the opportunity.

Some of the winners, ie., Ruben Studdard and Taylor Hicks, have had little to no success. But, not everyone in the mainstream music business who uses their opportunities ends up succesful. But, in my opinion, it is difficult to say that Kelly Clarkson and Carrie Underwood are not tremendously successful and talented. In my opinion, they are as good as anyone else in their respective genres.

I could go on and on, but I've already blabbed too long!

Alan