Where is Taylor's big career anyway?
Posted on 03/10/2007 11:40:01 AM PST by My Favorite Headache
Simon Cowell Will Quit American Idol If Sanjaya Wins By Toshiba Reynolds Mar 10, 2007
American Idol judge Simon Cowell has doomed a wannabe singer's chance of winning the reality Tv talent show contest. Cowell has revealed he'll quit the show if he wins.
The acid-tongued British svengali was admittaly stunned when contestant Sanjaya Malakar beat rocker Sundance Head for a place in the final 12 on Thursday night.
Cowell says he'll leave the show if the Indian-American singer is crowned the next American Idol.
The Minister of Mean says, "He's not going to win. I won't be back if he does!"
I think it causes male shrinkage.
Hopefully that guy wins then. If Cowell leaves American Idol is over - which would be good news!
They should have a show called American Band...have national tryouts for bands...I understand the time constraints of something like this working...but a band could come in...have all the instruments set up that a band needs and they could perform on the spot. Each week have a band voted off...let's get back to the raw real talent and not the high school talent show crap we get spoon fed each week.
Simon is a master at gaining publicity for Idol!
Well, you know that the only reason AI has been successful is because they have a commercial with scenes from the next episode of '24', right?
I was watching Grease II earlier today and then IMDB'd the cast. Sid Ceasar is still alive and kickin'! Now that was entertainment!
http://www.votefortheworst.com/
They are pushing Sanjaya hard.
Where is Taylor's big career anyway?
Never liked him at all...Daughtry on the other hand....talent.
How can Simon quit? He literally owns the show.
Sanjaya makes Clay Aiken look masculine in comparison.
LOL!
Sanjaya is not that bad, but Simon Cowell is ridiculously pompous and arrogant. He needs to get off his high horse and stop blackmailing the viewers on whom they should vote for.
There was a program like that a few years back (I think on VH1) where the bands had to play cover tunes.
A real battle of the bands (including bands since to smaller labels) would pose a genuine threat to the established "order" of the entertainment business. They don't want something coming out that they don't own (literally and figuratively).
Say a new form of music called "Grape" comes along. The industry may create their own "Grape" bands but the leaders of the Grape scene won't be signed if they've got too much independence to begin with. Labels want to own publishing. They market celebrity. If they believe that you can make money from their publicity that they won't see (from older album sales) they don't want you. They want to be able to pull the plug on your career. If you can walk away and still be successful after they've abandoned promoting your career, they don't want you.
And if by chance, you do get a second act in your career, the label who dropped you will still make money off your back catalog.
If a new music form comes along (again "Grape"), the industry has to spend money scouting Grape bands and bidding against other labels for them. They also may be stuck with Disco and Country-Rock bands the new kids don't want to hear. They'd rather protect their interest in the status quo corporate music than keep delving into new areas.
The payola scandals of the 1950s and 1960s was because the old guard (ASCAP and Sinatra and pals) hated rock and roll and the dominance it was taking on the charts. ASCAP wouldn't publish rock songs. BMI would. Major labels didn't want to touch it, independents would.
There had been payloa in the music business from the beginning. It is still there. The majors lost market share to upstart labels (and in the case of Elvis, RCA paid a lot to capture that market).
Grunge was a fluke. WEA bought up stake in a lot of indie labels with the hopes of owning a share of whatever became big.
In the end the industry killed with with a one two punch of a "swing fad" (the bands are still around but don't get noticed) and boy bands. The next big thing. They tried this in the 1950s with caypso, bop music, and folk singing as the "next thing after rock and roll".
The music we are exposed to is bad by corporate design. The corporate rock bands of the 1970s were not the best that the era had to offer either.
Doesn't the show own a stake in the careers of these performers anyway?
Didn't they already make a hit of one of the also rans in the past?
It's true, but musicians have more ways to work around the industry than even before. The best bands aren't going to sell 20 million records - but part of that is because there aren't 20 million people who can appreciate the difference between what they do and what the "boy band of the week" does.
Almost every band I like is on either their own label or a smaller offshoot of a major label. They aren't multi-millionaires, but they do OK.
Agree 100%. Another thing you didn't mention...the reason hip-hop and rap is so huge and they make so much money...is because a majority of them started on independent family like labels. Labels that pay them directly...allow the artist to own the rights to the songs...etc..there are some hip hop artists who are worth 100 million and they have maybe a couple of platinum albums under their belt.
It's how they handled themselves from the start when they signed on the dotted line. All of them wind up being scouts as well and producers...an endless cash flow.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.