One of the best things about Idol Chatter is the interchange of ideas and attitudes, and I'm hoping I can grab more time to participate more actively. (Not that you all don't do a great job of keeping things humming when I'm off working or something.)
There are a lot of interesting comments today, so I'm going to wade in and respond a while:
> The issue of Idol tour newspaper reviews continues to resonate, sparked by my wider posting of a particularly San Francisco Chronicle review by Aidin Vaziri (who, by the way, Tiffany, is a guy).
BamBamBam commented: "Ken, I just don't know. In my reviewing career, I felt lucky that my experienced mentor told me the week I was first published, 'Always address the music' ...
Once you start giving out the vibe that you find it an imposition to get free tickets and be paid for saying your little piece about people who sold the tickets -- it's a little signal that maybe you are forgetting your place (or overestimating it) in this big old machine."
Considerable truth there. The last thing the reading public cares about is whether you had to wait an hour at the Will Call window until a management rep straightened out your ticket situation, or if your car broke down on the way to the show, or if you were seated directly behind a particularly demonstrative football team.
However, when your job consists of going out four or five nights a week to see shows after spending the day in a newsroom or otherwise employed (I know, tough job, but somebody's gotta do it, etc.), you do tend to appreciate displays of professional courtesy that help you do your job (tickets on hand, sometimes a setlist, backstage pass if you need to talk to the artists beforehand or afterward, even a parking pass now and then to make sure you don't miss any of the show. Not including chauffered ride to show, complimentary jeroboams of champagne, or other extravagant perks.). But definitely if that doesn't happen, you shouldn't let your disgruntlement show up in your review -- it's not the performers' fault.
> Wesley puts things in stronger terms: "BamBamBam notwithstanding, I've found rock concert reviewers to be some of the most uniformly snobbish, overly intellectual and under-educated journalists out there, who generally can't seperate their biases from the story. If they don't like something, then it's not worth listening to, and if you like something they don't, then neither are you.
"Plus, anyone who thinks Takin' It to the Streets is one of the worst songe ever automatically gets his opinion invalidated, because he's obviously a big poopy-head."
Ouch. Cut us a break, Wesley. Sure, probably everyone who's read anything about music has been ticked off by some arrogant/ignorant writer, but most of the music journalists I know really know and love music and have an educated musical perspective that makes their opinions worth considering. (Although they can be a bit snobbish, true.)
Of course, you may want to take the above with a grain of salt, since it's coming from an obvious big poopy-head. (Sorry, I never could stand Takin' It to the Streets.)
> Andre Evangelista, in points echoed by the Sister of Don Francisco in another comment, is also exasperated by this whole critic thing: "What I really wonder is why the press even bothers reviewing such a known quantity. What's the point?
"Everyone who goes already knows exactly what they're going to get. Everyone who stays away already knows exactly why they're staying away.
"Everyone already knows that the reviewer will be in agony for two hours and will write a negative or even toxic review. And everyone already knows that American Idol will try to give the press a bad time.
So really, why even bother with reviews? Who does it benefit?"
I think reviews of the Idol tour have clear benefits. What reviewers can do, ideally, is evaluate the Idols' performances -- singing ability, showmanship, staging, etc. -- in the larger context of popular music as a whole. A lot of people, including the vast majority of music fans who are interested in music but don't go out to concerts often, are curious about how the Idols stack up. Sure, some Idol fans are not about to be swayed, but others (including most of the people who comment on this blog, who have always conducted a lively debate on the strengths and weaknesses of various Idols) should find points of interest -- unless the reviewer is clearly just venting his or her spleen. (I've never quite figured out what that means, but the mental picture is pretty unpleasant.)
And why should the Idols be immune from being critiqued in the media? It's part of what they signed up for.
Had a couple of other topics to talk about, but I think I'll hold them for another post; I've rambled on enough.