Thursday, May 17, 2007


The one person who should not have gone home, the woman who I had predicted to win since the earliest rounds of the contest, is the one going home, Melinda Doolittle. I can understand why she lost, she's the least marketable of the three, but she's by far the most talented. Regardless, she has a huge career ahead of her.

Between Blake and Jordin, it's a tossup who will win. I prefer Blake, but a lot depends on how they sing next week.


Anonymous said...

Oh, this is all my fault, I didn't vote!!!!

I was more disappointed than I've ever been watching these, I think, because she's someone I admire on a personal level as well as artistically. I loved how she dealt with the result-- no sobbing or pouting, just polite appreciation and on with the show.

It's comforting to know she has a great career ahead of her regardless.

Anonymous said...

This is the problem with TIVO-ing everything: I haven't been voting because I haven't been watching them live. I guess I'll have to make up for this and BUY Melinda Doolittle's album when it eventually comes out. As for who will win...I think they are both talented. Blake needs to be very careful in deciding whether to beat-box or not. And I'd like to see some variety in his wardrobe, too. Yes, wardrobe counts. Contrary to what Simon keeps preaching, this is NOT "a singing competition" or else Melinda would still be around.

Anonymous said...

There is a very intriguing article in the AP today about what makes singers singers today:

Here's a quick quote from it:

When asked whether a female with so-so looks and sex appeal could get a record deal,
Gretchen Wilson quickly replied: "They can't."

"I believe that very few will get through and they better be amazing," Wilson said in an interview. "The music is not about just music anymore, it's about the look, the 'it' factor if you will ... it's marketing."

I guess it's true that video killed the radio star. Interestingly, the same does not hold for male musicians -- who are often anything but good to look at (some boy bands excepted, of course!)

This also tells us why pop music today is hardly as compelling as it once was.

Bondelev said...

>Interestingly, the same does not hold for male musicians

I think you'd better leave that to the teen girls to decide; looks matter for boy singers too, although not as much as for girls. Check out the Billboard Top 200 on their web site. How else can you explain Michael Buble at #1???

It's definitely worse now than ever, but it's always been around. (THE MONKEES, etc.).

Anonymous said...

There are *far* more skanky male musicians (rock bands, etc) than females. It's pretty clear that for the males, on average, being cute is still just a bonus, not a requirement as it is for women musicians.

The Monkees were a marketing device, much like the Spice Girls. When they were brought together, they didn't even play instruments, they were hired as actors who played musicians. So it's a bit off topic to use them as an example here -- unless you think that all singers today are just marketing devices. ;-)

Bondelev said...

>There are *far* more skanky male musicians (rock bands, etc) than females

By your standards. By teen girl standards, they are "hot."

>unless you think that all singers today are just marketing devices.

I knew if you thought about it long enough, you'd get my point! ;P

Bondelev said...

Another article about this topic

Anonymous said...

You keep referring to "teenage girls". Pop music sells to an older demographic: 18-24. While pre-18 is no doubt beneficial, not all pop is for pre-18 year olds.

Bondelev said...

"Authoritative" source on the subject

ZiggyMustard said...

Even though people keep harping about Jordin and "the whole package", I just don't see her selling. Shades of Katherine McPhee, I guess.