American Idol? I've got a few questions for you....

So, Bill's mind has been racing today - two entries in one day. Had no intent to do another one...until I just watched tonight's American Idol results show on DVR. Not that anyone associated with the show will ever see my tiny little blog, but hey....if enough people talk about it, you never know.

So here's my open letter to American Idol.

Dear American Idol,

First of all, I am amazed at the reactions you cause from people like me, who are addicted to your show, but would change at least 90% of it if we could. I imagine most of your viewers fall into that category, so the fact that people still rush to their TV 3 times a week for you is impressive. I have some questions to ask - so please, indulge me for a little.

First - why is it that, in your opinion, America can not idolize anyone over the age of 28 years old? You put a maximum age limit on the audition age of 28. I can understand the minimum age limit of 16, because for the most part, children singing sound mostly like cats in a microwave to me, but 28? Really? There are so many people with more ability than the floatsam and jetsam you let get into the televised auditions (for ratings, I get that, but still....), but yet, you break your own rules if you feel you can capitalize on it. Larry Platt gets in to a televised audition at 62 to sing that ridiculous "Pants On The Ground" nonsense. REALLY? It wasn't even that clever...but then again, you did try to shove Adam Lambert down our throats all last year - and as a heterosexual male, the LAST thing I want shoved down my throat is anything to do with Adam Lambert.

Second - can you decide what type of show you really want to be? Are you a true singing contest? If you are, I don't want to hear any more about someone's marketability or look. I care what they sound like. I will buy the CD to listen to the music, not to ogle the cover. Carrie Underwood may be a gorgeous young lady, but she can SING. Opening the voting to the public basically turns it from a singing competition to a general likeability competition. Kellie Pickler was likable - in a younger version of Rose from the Golden Girls way - but she couldn't sing her way out of the proverbial wet paper bag. That's what happens when you turn the voting over to the public, where people will vote for whomever makes their blood boil over, regardless if they sound like a water buffalo in heat, or worse...Pierce Brosnan in Mamma Mia. Ugh. Which brings me to my next question....

Third - Why call Simon, Randy, Kara, and now Ellen "judges"? A judge has the ability to directly affect the outcome of something. If I get a speeding ticket, the "judge" doesn't just give me advice, then turn it over to the gallery to decide my fine. What these people are reduced to is called a "critic" - someone who gives an opinion about something, which may or may not influence a person's own free will about their thoughts regarding something. If I want to see a movie, and a critic says the movie's terrible, I may consider it, but in the end, if I want to see it, I'll still see it, regardless of the critic's opinion. If you want them to be "judges", give them decision making authority. Have the 4 of them vote to send someone home. If they agree with the popular vote, then that person goes home. If they don't agree, send BOTH people home.

Fourth - make it a little less predictable please. Tonight, if you weren't one of the last two people in a group to get reviewed, you were safe, and you knew it. I don't need to hear what the "critics" (I refuse to call them judges) had to say about everyone. Otherwise, it's just way too contrived.

Those are my questions. I will not expect any answers - I'm sure others have expressed these very same thoughts, but if you have any concrete answers to any of them, contact me. Comment here and get in touch. I would love to hear what your rationale is.

Sincerely,
Bill Winters,
Author - No Filter Required.

There it is folks. Comment away - either below or on the Facebook link.