I have been commissioned to write a piece on American Idol. Despite deep thought and concentration, I wasn't coming up with anything remotely intelligent to say about A.I. (which, I have been told, is what "insiders" call it). So, I sent an email poll:
1) who do you think did the worst last night?
2) who do you think did the best last night?

Bad.

That many competitors times two questions times six people's opinons = none of the same answers.

So what it really boils down to is: I don't know who to support. I like Katharine McPhee, but should the winner be someone who has been the recepient of so much vocal training? Should it be someone with raw and, as yet, untapped talent? I mean, at some point you draw the line, don't you? For Pete's sake, we're not letting Whitney compete.

Ok, I know the "line" is drawn somewhere around people who are 30 years of age and who don't already have a signed deal with a record label. But what do people think about when they're choosing someone to support?

Here are some things I considered:
1) Do they have potential? What is their "diamond-in-the-rough" factor?
2) Are they improving as the show goes on?
3) Are they humble? Are they teachable?
4) Are they cute? (Ok, that's an extra bonus)
5) Do they sound like other singers on Top-40 radio?

And here is my "ahah" moment. Who stands out? Who doesn't sound like someone who is already on the radio? And does America really want someone who doesn't sound like someone who isn't already on the radio? (I think that makes sense)

So, that's my dilemma. Is American Idol really about discovering new talent or just a way of ensuring we will continue to have people who sound like the people we have now? Hmmmm.....finger tapping, finger tapping, finger tapping.

I'll get back to ya on this one.