Nashville stars vs American Idol

Discussion in 'Miscellaneous [BG]' started by Fire-Starter, Mar 9, 2004.

  1. Fire-Starter

    Fire-Starter Supporting Member

    Aug 11, 2002
    I actually watched this show for the firstime, (Nashville stars) and it seems to me that the contestants have more talent than those on American Idol! I did not see one person who was on the show (just for the sake of getting on t.v, who had no talent) all of these people could sing, or sing and play!
    Are the auditions for even getting on that show tougher than the Idol? :meh:
  2. odie

    odie Supporting Member

    Fire- This is a music related topic. I am going to move this to MISC.
  3. P. Aaron

    P. Aaron Supporting Member

    Nashville Star rules! Plus the contestants can/do write and perform their own songs, and there's instrumentation:eek:, like the good old days.

    Idol is a fine show. But the sameness of the musical genre gets tiresome.
  4. rickbass

    rickbass Supporting Member

    I believe that, Starter.

    "American Idol" has almost nothing to with music. It's glorified karaoke that is about "star power" rather than musical ability.
    Only judge, Randy Jackson, can actually create music as opposed to the ex-cheerleader and the a**hole on there.
  5. Boplicity

    Boplicity Supporting Member

    Nashville Stars did produce a fairly substantial winner last year, Buddy Jewels, if I have his name correct. He is more of a traditional country singer with a traditional country look than the new "pop country' style. He has a CD out and is currently touring. Plus he wasn't a cookie cutter pretty boy. He is older than one would have expected could win a contest of this sort.

    What Nashville Stars encourages and American Idol does not is that if a contestant can play an instrument and even better write his own music in the long tradition of a country singer/songwriter, they are allowed to to so and doing so redounds to their benefit.

    I'm not sure why American Idol has chosen to not permit their contestants to play piano or guitar even if they do so very well. They are also not encouraged to compose their own music.

    However, in country music both men and women do commonly play, fiddles, banjos, steel guitar, etc.

    Pop is a different genre, though, with different expectations for its performers. Being a highly experienced instrumentalist is not a major requirement for pop solo acts. Instead they rely on backup musicians and singers. I don't agree, however, that this reduces them to glorified Karaoke I have said here many times.

    Frank Sinatra, Tony Bennett, Dean Martin, Barbra Streisand, Celine Dion, Whitney Houston can hardly be called karaoke singers. Their voices are their principle instrument. There is nothing inferior about that, plus they provide work for musicians and song writers.
  6. rickbass

    rickbass Supporting Member

    What those singers did, IMO & IME, Jason, was create the definitve versions of the songs they sang --- no matter whether those songs came out of the Brill Building or wherever. Those singers made the songs "their own."

    These "American Idol" wanks are just busting a nut trying to mimic the vocals of long-established versions of songs we are all pretty sick of.....(with maybe a couple of exceptions).

    For the most part, they are "mynah birds", IMO.
  7. P. Aaron

    P. Aaron Supporting Member

    I am impressed with the talent (obviously vetted before the taping) of the people competing. Some are forced, but others are complete naturals.
    The real competition begins when they start performing their own songs.
    Most of the contestants have the talent to hold their own on almost any stage, though not necessarily at the top. Unlike Idol, where the entertainment is really the the lack of talent, and the critics evaluations.
    Most impressive was George Canyon and Stacy Michelle. They seemed to be the most at ease, and just naturals. Anybody else see the last round?
  8. Boplicity

    Boplicity Supporting Member

    What I do agree with in your statement is that the contestants do try to sing right down to the most minute phrasing of the original artist. Then the judges say, "Try to let your own style show. Take a chance. Make the song your own."

    Next week, the contestants come back, take a chance, make the song "their own" and the judges say, 'What was that? What were you trying to do, dawg? Don't try so hard" etc. and I sit there wondering what the heck is going on--a judges' bait and switch?

    I mean these poor contestants do what the judges suggest one week and get their fannies kicked for that very thing the next week. I don't think even the judges know what they want from the contestants.

    Still, once a contestant is lucky enough to win such as Clay Aiken, or Rubben Studdard, they are no longer singing covers. Their CDs are all original music or most of the CDs are.

    Plus, if these singers are to survive beyond their first CD, they will have to make memorable and unique music like Frank Sinatra and RoseMary Clooney did, like you say. In other words, they will know they are true successes when new A.I. contestants try to sing their songs just EXACTLY like Ruben and Clay and Kelly recorded them. Indeed, Clay Aiken has already had a couple imitators this season, but Simon turned them down because they were virtual clones of Clay's and showed no orginality.