The Voice vs. American Idol
I was entranced by American Idol, a true fan for several seasons, but let's be honest: the only true pop star to emerge from the series was Kelly Clarkson. You can make a good argument that Carrie Underwood has been more dominant on the country charts and has more album sales. But Kelly has had 9 Top 10 hits (Hot 100) and 3 #1's vs. Carrie's 3 and 1 But probably the most damning statistic that of the top 15 artist album sales, 7 did not even win their season. In fact, for season 5, the winner places third of 3 contestants in the Top 15. Moreover, there are only 2 artists/winners past season 8 in the Top 15; in fact, nearly half are from the first 5 seasons. So something was definitely not working after the mid 2000's. The reasons for that are beyond the scope of this post, but was it Simon Cowell's leaving the show, more lenient rules for contestant song choices, etc.? Not sure.I've had my point of view regarding American Idol; I didn't like use of celebrity judges and pandering to contestants, I really wanted to see contestants sing across a variety of genres outside their comfort zone and tackle songs with vocal complexity (say, test the higher register), maybe tackle original material (so we see more of the singer's style vs. an emulation of the original artist). Now granted, there is always going to be some variability if the singers don't sing the same songs (which would be boring, although probably the fairest way, a common baseline, for comparing vocalists). I wanted more detailed critiques and tough love from judges (e.g., "you went pitchy/off-key during the second verse; you went flat during the chorus; you missed this note (or lyric), I don't think your interpretation did justice to the lyrics: you relied too heavily on runs and vocal gimmicks, etc." I would also like to see judges that span the entertainment industry, e.g., producers like David Foster, songwriters like Diane Warren, etc., not just veteran performers.
There are issues of format also. For example, do voters confound singer performances with their preferred genres (e.g., country-western fans voting for the artist based on song selection)? Does the general public have the ability to detect vocal flaws in a performance? What about alternative arrangements (e.g., duets, working with backup singers, etc.)?
Not to mention there are weird voting schemes. For example, how fair is it that individual fans can vote up to 20-50 times or more per their favorite contestant? My one carefully considered vote is outweighed by a motivated groupie. There are times truly talented singers were eliminated (or nearly eliminated) early in the competitions. True, in later seasons, judges were rationed a limited number of saves. I would have liked to see the judges publish their scores and/or have a panel of judges whose scores were weighted in the findings; for example, the public might choose the top X -3, and the judges determine who's safe among the bottom 3
Now does a meritocracy guarantee popularity of a pop singer? Obviously not. Opera singers don't often hit the Top 100. Production techniques can mask vocal flaws. The well-written song, the right hook can work despite the vocalist. (It took a while for me to get used to Bob Dylan's nasal tone and vocal style.) There's also a lot to be said for what a singer's charisma and natural gifts bring to a song; for example, who besides Barbra Streisand can make a hit song out of dumb lyrics like "people, people who need people" or "love, soft as an easy chair"? But Kelly Clarkson can nail insanely high notes, and what Carrie Underwood does with "Before He Cheats" is sheer brilliance. (I have a fairly decent tenor/baritone voice (I've never had a vocal coach but sang high school choir), but I find songs like "It's More Than A Feeling", "Dream On", "MacArthur Park" and "Bridge Over Troubled Water" challenging.)
I think there is a lot to be said for singer/songwriters like Neil Diamond, Paul McCartney, Paul Simon, Bob Dylan, Taylor Swift, Carole King, Joni Mitchell, et al. who can write and perform material well-suited to their vocal ranges, not to mention those who can play musical instruments, although I'm not sure you could build a competition show around them. (Songwriting is an art; I have dozens of song fragments but few finished songs, and I'm not sure how commercial those efforts would be; I'm stronger on lyrics than melody.)
I've watched The Voice a few times, mostly during the "blind auditions". There's no doubt if you use the criterion of who has hit Top 40, American Idol wins--through 2015, only 4 of the first 8 winners of The Voice hit Top 40 for a total of 6 hits, and some of those were during the season, not after.
I decided to watch the latest season of The Voice on a streaming service (not finished yet); I'm not really into the Team [Star Singer] competition, the pandering comments by the stars themselves for much the same reasons I've criticized American Idol judges, never mind the contestants gushing over some superstar guest coach. I could see alternative formats, e.g., talent drafts in a team context. (I'm not a fan of the celebrity judges pandering to a contestant to choose their teams.) I'm not a big fan of the intrateam competitive pairings, decided by the celebrity team leads, although the team steal concepts are an interesting concept. The duets provide something of a common baseline; I would probably tweak it so allow a ranking of paired performances, say where the top ranked duet is exempt from eliminations. I don't understand the pairing concept for individual performances (e.g., what if you pair similarly able contestants?) (Of course, this can result in a "steal".) The eliminations seem to be aimed at a final competition among the 4 team survivors.
I'm still not sold on how the team concept is implemented, for example, we don't really have duet or pairwise battles across teams. Still, unlike American Idol, the celebrity team leads/judges have a better say over retaining team members and/or are a factor in interim results. I will say, I love the bits and pieces of the coaches advising contestants on how to tweak their performances. There are some constraints on song choice, although I liked American Idol's rotation of themes (say, songs from the 1970's).
So which formats wins? Well, I think the nuances of rules and voting eliminations make The Voice more interesting; I also like the fact that The Voice is more open to older contestants and seems to attract contestants at least as talented and/or more experienced. I still would like to see more elements of spontaneity and complexity (like improvising comedic skits), e.g., extemporaneous song selections. I have heard nothing about ABC's new incarnation of American Idol that attracts me as a viewer. Would I buy an album or song track from a winner of The Voice or American Idol? It depends on the material and the performance. I think, like the right book cover, winning a competition might get a foot in the door, but I don't even listen to the radio anymore. I loathe rap with a passion. I don't like vocal gimmicks, like Michael Jackson's grunt or Mariah Carey's showing off her octave range. I like singers who can get into a songwriter's head and draw attention to the lyrics vs. themselves. Even in remakes, I love innovative interpretive twists which often leave the original hit version in the dust, e.g., the Hollies' "Stop in the Name of Love", Dan Fogelberg's "Rhythm of the Rain", or Dave Mason's "Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow?"
WWE Notes
For once, WWE Creative did the right thing, putting Samoa Joe to contest Brock Lesnar for his "Universal" championship. I thought the WWE might decide to feud Lesnar against Roman Reigns as the victors over Undertaker, although the last time they met, Lesnar tossed Reigns around like a rag doll. They were also teasing Balor as the first, unbeaten Universal champion (he surrendered his title due to injury), although Balor looks like an anemic cruiserweight next to the massive Lesnar. Heel Samoa Joe is probably the most competitive, believer challenger to Lesnar. The only question is whether they will put the belt on Samoa Joe now or wait until SummerSlam. A part-timer like Lesnar provides little upside. There are too many babyfaces on Raw, and Samoa Joe could fend off a number of challengers.I'm still waiting for the promotion to turn Balor heel and reform the Bullet Club with Gallows and Anderson, who seem to have gone nowhere since dropping the tag belts. The Hardy Boyz dropped the tag titles to Cesaro and Sheamus, unlikely heels, and still haven't been able to return to their innovative "Broken" gimmick developed under a prior promotion. I'm still not happy with the barely 5'1" slender Alexis Bliss being the Raw women's champ going over 6'0" heavyweight Nia Jax.
On the Smackdown roster, I don't understand after rebuilding Owens as the ruthless US champion, they've had Owens falling to Nakamura's finisher in two consecutive matches. I don't like Jinder Mahal being champ after a forgettable jobber past. Although Randy Orton is being shown as likely to regain his title in his hometown of St. Louis (although Bayley recently lost her title at her hometown of LA), it's more likely the returning John Cena is likely to be booked into a championship match for a record number of championships. It's not clear where they go with Styles, Nakamura, Orton, or Rusev, although a Styles-Nakamura clash seems inevitable as well as an Orton heel turn.
A "Progressive" Nephew Responds
I've written over the last 2-3 weeks about a nephew who provoked a debate by attacking a clip of the Trump Administration explaining a reduction of Medicaid planned increases was not a cut. He recently responded in a private email with a lengthy discussion (which I wouldn't republish without his knowledge and consent). He's not backing off his class-based rhetoric; he's sharply critical of companies investing in things like share buybacks vs. putting more money into business expansions. He resurrected the point about lower-income people more readily spending money in the current economy (vs. the rich people's use of the same money). He does seem to recognize the Fed shares some of the blame for the status quo. He does offer some concessions to a more conservative perspective, e.g., he might be willing to do something like drug testing of welfare recipients (there are recent professional experiences explaining that).The familiar reader might anticipate some of my responses to this. Is the stock market pricey? Yes. But in my view, there's too much bearish sentiment, too many positive indicators. I could see a minor correction at any time. And keep in mind that we have had modest interest rates, which should translate into higher market multiples. In my retirement accounts, I've gone into more diversified ETFs than single issues, especially in certain market segments, and have expanded global or international coverage, but I have a significant amount of cash on the sidelines.
Why are so many companies sitting on cash and not investing? In short, the government footprint is too large, and there's too much uncertainly over government policy. Trump seems to have no stomach for seriously reforming unsustainable entitlements.
I also point out, contrary to his perceptions, we already have a State system which encourages consumption and debt, discourages saving, work. Food Stamp America is at near-record highs.
Still, my nephew explained how, as part of a major management consulting company, he had been involved in a major West Coast public sector project involving an overly expensive, incompetent, self-serving bureaucracy which did little for the poor people they serve; the public unions had disparate influence and presence (escalating minor issues), and internal promotions are based more on tests and supervisory rating than objective performance. The consultants basically had to do change management in place of internal personnel and witnessed abuses (e.g., fraud to manipulate higher benefits for clients, social workers padding their reported hours, buildings reeking of marijuana smoke, mothers with malnourished children, mentally ill clients, etc.)
Am I surprised? No. He does seem open to reform, talking about things like lifetime benefit limits, term limits, controls over program disbursements to clients (e.g., not subsidizing their purchases of pot). He is also aware there are a lot of people who don't apply for programs they're eligible for. No discussion of reforms like working for benefits, of the unintended adverse consequences of working, only to see offsets to benefits, of minimum-wage laws and occupational licensing policies which discourage lower-income people from getting job experience which could be a stepping stone for a better economic future. He also doesn't mention how politicians interfere with charities (e.g., food and shelter for the homeless.
