BOOKS AND ARTS JANUARY 18, 2013
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Mariah Carey, who made her debut alongside Nicki Minaj and Keith Urban in the now-storied role of celebrity judge on “American Idol” on Wednesday night, was paid as many millions as she has lifetime No. 1 hits (18) to appear on this, the twelfth season of the long-running show. Eighteen million also happens to be the approximate number of viewers who tuned into the season premiere of the Fox show, down from 30 million just three years ago. That paycheck and even the lackluster ratings still put her ahead of Britney Spears, who received a reported $16 million for her one season of judging on rival “The X Factor” this fall (a brief experiment that will not be repeated). Her debut episode drew even less interest than Carey’s, resulting in what was then the lowest ratings ever for the show. The Spears hire was, more or less, a direct reaction to the attention-grab of her longtime rival Christina Aguilera, on yet another singing-competition show, “The Voice.” Both Aguilera and her former co-judge CeeLo Green (of Gnarls Barkley and “Fuck You” fame) decided not to return to the show this season, instead opting to focus on their own recording careers for a while. Their slots have been filled by Shakira and Usher. Elsewhere, channel-surfing after 8 pm in the past few years, you might have encountered Steven Tyler, Adam Levine, Jennifer Lopez, Blake Shelton, and Demi Lovato on a judges’ panel.
The Celebrity Judge, in other words, has become a staple, and, in recent years, the celebrity half of the job description has become far more important than the judge part. (Since Aguilera’s initially surprising participation – regarded when she signed on as a new low, but which turned out to be quite the opposite—it has been a gig increasingly filled by A-listers.) He or she is trotted out before the cameras like an animated trophy, mostly to remind the viewing audience and the hopeful contestants that the brass ring exists. After all, both Spears and Aguilera appeared on “Star Search,” a previous generation’s version of the high-stakes talent show. Someday, with a lot of luck and talent and hard work, those contestants can end up on exactly the same prime-time cattle call—only next time, it’ll be for pay. This might seem to be the natural order of things, but in fact, the degree to which the trend has overtaken the shows represents the closest thing the celebrity-industrial complex has seen yet to an existential threat. (Breathe. It’s unkillable, even at its own hands.)
The celebrity-judge gravy train began with Paula Abdul, back when it was more of a D-list kind of occupation. She, with her career long stalled, needed “American Idol” more than it needed her. And it worked. Soon, every American with a television set knew in 2002 that she was the sweet, and possibly addled, foil to Simon Cowell’s mean-guy truthteller. Cowell, by the way, belongs to a rarer genus than the Celebrity Judge: a judge turned celebrity. (In case anyone ever asks you what Tim Gunn and Richard Posner have in common, you’ll want to remember this category.) Cowell became famous the honest way: he was not only distinctive, but the very best at what he did. He cared about the performances, offered incisive critiques, and often bet on less marketable singers whom he thought were more talented than their rivals. Simon and Paula may have argued (and flirted) with one another, but mostly Paula was there to break up the tension, which was always, really, between him and the contestants on stage: What would he say to them? How cutting would he be? (Randy Jackson, then as now, was … there.)
Still, Abdul’s success, which she managed to bite off without any evidence whatsoever of fangs, established that any celebrity who agreed to such a gig needn’t worry about lowering her Q score by doling out harsh criticism to the average Americans with above-average pipes who appeared before her. Reality show contestants might not be there to make friends, but celebrity judges—even, now, Cowell—are.
Consider Carey’s guest-judging appearance on a previous season of “Idol,” which presumably functioned as her audition for the large contract she signed for this one. “I feel weird about the whole, like, ‘judging’ people in general,” she said, with air-quote gestures abounding. “Just look at me like, whatever, that’s my friend I met last week who sings for a living and writes songs occasionally,” rolling her eyes both casually and shrugging for extra effect. “I’m glad I got to see these guys now because who knows what’s going to happen," she continues, with unconvincing generosity of spirit. “We’ll see them, ah, see them hopefully at the top of the charts, every one of them,” now with a shimmying little movement of her head, and a wide diva grin that assures the viewer she isn’t currently threatened by any of these upstarts, but if they get any closer to success, shivs might be out.
Because that’s become part of the script: celebrity judges can’t be mean to the actual contestants, but they can be mean to each other. Or flirt wildly with one another. (Just about everyone took a crack at country heartthrob Blake Shelton, though perhaps they might do well to look up one or two of his wife’s hits.) Beefs, like the one that the Fox PR department seemed determined to gin up between Minaj and Carey, and one which the ladies are only too happy to enact on camera, appear to be the next front in an increasingly desperate attempt to re-up interest in the show. Or, more to the point, to re-up interest in the careers of the judges themselves. Judges log a whole lot more time on stage performing than they used to, and other established stars, like Taylor Swift, make frequent guest appearances.
Meanwhile, new roles have been created to give the maximum number of celebrities an opportunity to align themselves with the brand. On “The X-Factor,” Cowell’s current vehicle and the most fame-obsessed of the trio, there are now celebrity “mentors” (Justin Bieber, Marc Anthony) in addition to judges—which requires less time commitment but still brings a certain amount of “prestige,” something loosely akin to being of counsel at a law firm—as well masters of ceremony who appear to have been picked out by a network executive throwing darts at an Us Weekly. (Not the bullseye, but guess we’ll settle for the tall Kardashian!) Much of the press around the show has shifted away from the contestants, who used to become true bold-faced names by the end of the season, and towards to the judges: how they interact with each other, who is going to sign up, and for how much. Publicists have gotten good at floating rumors about some of the world’s most bombastic personalities. Kanye West, Charlie Sheen, and Diddy’s names were all bandied about this summer, more unlikely for the chaos they would have created than for the salaries they would have commanded: none would have been docile enough to say the boring or scripted things expected of them.
What made “American Idol” feel so new a decade ago, despite the timeworn premise of a talent search, was that it promised to reveal how your celebrity sausage got made. Everyone’s gorged themselves on the end product, but how’d it end up on your plate? Who was making those calls, and what did those appraisals really sound like? Having talent and judging talent are not the same thing, which was the dynamic upon which the whole enterprise rested. With a few exceptions (Christina Aguilera is a range snob, for instance), the pop stars on the panels these days often don’t seem to be much more musically discriminating than the audience at home.
Yes, the three shows’ tanking ratings are at least in part a result of having diluted the market among themselves, but whoever is making the casting decisions upstairs at the network—the decidedly noncelebrity judges picking the onscreen talent for a very specific kind of role—has made the crucial mistake of forgetting that anyone who has tuned into the show has done so, on at least some level, because the existing universe of pop stars isn’t quite enough for him. Nicki Minaj might be doing her best Nicki Minaj, and Adam Levine might be doing his best Adam Levine, and Steven Tyler might be doing his best Steven Tyler, as they were all hired to do, but the viewer already knows well what that looks like. He’s sick of the old meat gumming up the grinder. He wants something fresh.
No one tell Mariah that, though. At least not in range.
17 comments
Sorry, but this is a new low in some of the crap being dispensed around here these days. Graves, somewhere, TNR stalwarts, turning over.
- basman
January 18, 2013 at 1:03pm
Agreed, I made a comment about this on the Why We Are Here thread. I have zero interest in this c***. Period. If we want to read about this stuff there are dozens of publications where we can bone up on c***.
- Sophia
January 18, 2013 at 3:59pm
In honor of the late great Dear Abby please sign me, Turning Over In Grave Already Even Though I Am Not In It Yet But If I Have To Read About "Celebrity Judges" in The New Republic I Will Probably Get There PDQ.
- Sophia
January 18, 2013 at 4:02pm
Appropriately astringent bas - I come to TNR to be elevated away from this garbage that we swim in these days as we wade through the media. I don't care about: - Lindsay Lohan - Tom Cruise or any of his wives - American Idol or any of its knock-offs in any context - reality TV in any context - and I mean ANY context - Lance effing Armstrong! - Mariah Carey Bas or others will complete the list. TNR has an incredible history of covering the arts like no other magazine. It has the finest art critic working today, the film and literary criticism are epic, architecture is getting better, etc. Please let's keep the arts coverage at the level that this magazine's fine history demands. How about more coverage of fine arts photography? The history of American cinema, directors, producers, oh I don't know. Just anything but the People magazine level tripe of this piece.
- WandreyCer
January 18, 2013 at 4:04pm
For that matter do we need ruminations on the NFL? Now - if you can make a link between politics, guns, violence, ancient Rome, modern America, Nazi Germany, Rush Limbaugh and his lies and utter disrespect for women, Newtown, and the NRA's shocking disdain for human life and civil society, maybe you'd have a good article. How about it?
- Sophia
January 18, 2013 at 5:48pm
Hehe. To sound a semi-contrary note, while I disagree with this article's thesis--really I'm not sure I understand what its thesis even is--there's nothing wrong per se with commentary about American Idol and the celebrity-industrial complex. In fact, the editors of The New Republic would be criminally negligent if they didn't assign such articles. And Wandrey, you might not care about Lance effing Armstrong, but that doesn't mean that the story of his downfall isn't important. Whether you care or not, athletic competition is important--at least as important as literature--and Armstrong's doping raises all sorts of thorny questions about the nature of athletic excellence and human excellence in general. Again, if the TNR's editors didn't cover the Armstrong story, they would deserve to be removed. In Sept/Oct I spent 4 weeks in Israel. Part of the time my family had a guide who had previously competed on Israel's national windsurfing team. (Windsurfing is one of the few Olympic sports where Israel is competitive.) I mentioned to him that Australia, where I live, is totally obsessed with sport. He must have heard a note of criticism in my voice, because he responded as follows, "This is a good thing that Australia should be sports-obsessed. If only we all lived in countries that were free to become obsessed with sports."
- AaronW
January 18, 2013 at 7:27pm
...there's nothing wrong per se with commentary about American Idol and the celebrity-industrial complex. In fact, the editors of The New Republic would be criminally negligent if they didn't assign such articles... My take: this is being obtusely contrarian for the sake of it. "Criminally negligent," overstated and absurd, gives it away.
- basman
January 18, 2013 at 9:47pm
Basman, while TNR's general thrust is more political, the magazine is swimming in the same pond as The New Yorker. It's fighting for readers from the same small pool of liberal, professional NPR-listeners, and thus far it's not fighting very successfully. The NYer's 2012 circulation is >1 million as compared to TNR's 40,000. TNR needs more readers. 40K, in the vernacular of my native Tidewater Va, ain't shit, and simple arithmetic will show you that if TNR could attract even one in twenty of the NYer's million-plus readers, it would more than double TNR's current readership. Now, you might not read the New Yorker, but that magazine covers subjects every bit as "trivial" as American Idol. In fact, it covers American Idol itself. And so it should, because any show that pulls 20-30 million viewers over a decade and produces a string of multi-platinum-selling recording artists and generates tons of water cooler conversation about the nature of talent and performance is a phenomenon that touches lots and lots if people, whether or not it touches you in your library as you enjoy your hundred-year-old Cognac and the Essays of Montaigne. And yes, "criminally" was hyperbolic, intentionally and obviously so, but "negligent" was not hyperbolic at all. If you don't see that TNR's editors cannot afford to ignore any phenomenon that acti 10% of the American population, along with a similar chunk of the core NPR/NYer/TNR demographic plus another chunk who never watch Idol but want to understand what all the fuss is about, then you're dumber--or at least more cloistered--than I thought.
- AaronW
January 19, 2013 at 7:43am
"acti" = "actively engages"
- AaronW
January 19, 2013 at 7:47am
Aaron, I totally disagree with everything you said about TNR coverage of the arts, to a remarkable degree - but I always enjoy your commentary very much, regardless of the topic. I am usually so relieved that we're on the same side :) Criminally negligent? Um, there is, in fact, no reason at all to cover the utter emptiness of anything you mention. Reality TV and American Idol don't have a place in the intellectual pantheon of this magazine and there's plenty of other places to find out what Mariah Carey's latest diet or feud is, I know because I peruse that shlock when I get my toes done, when I'm deliberately turning off my brain. The celebrity industrial complex is covered quite enough. What can be done in covering the arts has only been touched on. The New York Times new architecture editor is revolutionary, he's completely changed the genre in one year. Their readership has gone up from his work alone and he's influencing other newspapers everywhere. There's nothing stopping TNR from trying something along those lines - except if they dilute and waste the brand with the crap that this piece pollutes us with. Turning off the brain is simply not the job of TNR, it's the opposite - to engage our intellect in particularly challenging ways. I'm worshipful of Jed Perl, can't find him anywhere else doing the level of work he does here. And don't give me a demographic argument, everyone I work with is half my age and they all read, listen to all sorts of music and follow the fine arts voraciously. A brilliant man under 30 bought this magazine. My point on Lance Armstrong is that one article is quite enough, he-lied-he's-an-ass-yes-drugs-no-drugs and the rest is blather and filler - desperate navel gazing by the writer on What It All Means that's beyond done. Stick a fork in Lance, it's done, as they say.
- WandreyCer
January 19, 2013 at 9:02am
The architecture coverage at the NYT now focuses more on "public interest design" rather than on just the latest gleaming example of what rich people can do (snore, I mean there's a place for that but how can anyone say anything new about that?). I'd argue that the under 30 crowd is bored by the banality of money grubbing elites they've watched take down Wall Street, Capitol Hill, etc. They have no problem at all with the making of gobs of dough, but context and thinking outside the box, concrete ways of contributing to the public good - actually matter in the making of these gobs. Witness the ethos of Silicon Valley and the aggressive hoodie wearing symbolism of Facebook. I often do work on the Central Coast now as a non-profit consultant and I've been amazed at the difference in culture between there and the NYC/DC corridor, very refreshing. It's not all heroism and revolution, trust me, but they've never claimed it is. These folks may not always succeed, but they do try to make life more interesting and universally valuable as they grub, and more power to them. The simply gorge fest that's gone on for thirty years has given us nothing but empty coffers and a disintegrating planet. I'd argue that the whole Hollywood infotainment complex is part of that empty gorge fest - its sort of the visual manifestation of it, isn't it? Look, it employs lots of people and there's a place for it, just not in TNR. Try and change the conversation, don't just add to it. TNR is one of the few unique voices that can do that.
- WandreyCer
January 19, 2013 at 9:20am
(PS There's obviously empty money worshippers in that culture too, some of the worst ever in fact - witness that Facebook douchbag who actually gave up his American citizenship for a few more zillions. He shamed his forefathers in mindless greed and plowed new ground there didn't he? Wow.)
- WandreyCer
January 19, 2013 at 9:29am
Yeah Aaron, of course, get the Idle crowd subscribing to TNR to boost circulation. You continue merely to try to spin an argument for its own sake. You think anyone who watches Idle with the slightest degree of real interest or who follows the feud between Mariah Carrey and Nilkki Minaj is going to migrate here to read some ex Ivy Leaguer's analysis of it in the high toned prose of this piece. You're dreaming? Note the miles of distance between the college easy prose, and within that note, note the reference to Posner, that'll be fascinating to the Idle Crowd, and the sheer emptiness of the content. It unintentionally turns the prose into self parody. In the old days there'd be the occasional lighter argument on something like Oprah and that ilk, which were spritely, and a nice change. And there are something's on television that warrant serious attention since some episodic programs like The Wire and Deadwood are high art. But the suffusing of this place with pieces on the monstrous emptiness of commercial celebrity culture that thrives on the sheer emptiness of celebrity--famous, you'll recall, for being famous--is to lose any sense of standards and what the raison d'être of TNR has always been, a magazine of culture and politics, not the low life culture trading on the bullshit of commercial celebrity. As for cloistered, I'll put my immersion into popular culture against yours any time, hour minute, second,, you'd care to name. As for "dumber" please! Don't let your mouth write a check that your ass can't cash. It was you who dumbly wrote "criminal negligent" and then tried to rationalize that absurd locution by recourse to "negligent" in the context of complaints decrying the focusing here in large part on such on Mariah Carey, Nikki Minaj and Simon Cowell. What has sucked you in here, as I diagnose it, is the precise insight someone had on the essential fakery of this piece: the pretext of social commentary for merely rolling, high tonedly, in the low muck of the worst manifestations of celebrity, its underlying truth revealed as meretricious. That commenter got the point. You fell for it.
- basman
January 19, 2013 at 11:28am
Sorry for the odd typo and grammatical screw up.
- basman
January 19, 2013 at 11:32am
Wow, basman, you really don't get it. Maybe you're just too old, or maybe they breed 'em different up there in Canada. I am the "Idle crowd," one segment of it anyway, and yes I do believe that other Idol watchers, plenty of them ex-Ivy Leaguers themselves will come here to read about it, if for no reason other than to try to place some ironic distance between themselves and the trash they consume. Why do you think the New Yorker has Sasha Frere Jones writing critical essays about Lady Gaga and, yes, American Idol and Emily Nussbaum pounding out essays about "The New Normal", "Homeland" and "Two Broke Girls"? It sells. Deal with it. This is the world you live in.
- AaronW
January 19, 2013 at 4:14pm
It's pathetic and all too revealing Aaron, and entirely self defeating of what you're hopelessly trying make a case for, that now you're rationalizing all this on the altar of "ironic distance." If you watch this shit, and I do some of it, then have the self possession to understand what it is, take it for what it is, and don't intellectually emasculate yourself by recourse to "ironic distance." There are ways celebrity culture can seriously written about, but a piece that can do no better than take it on its terms, as above, no matter how high sounding, is no better than what it deal with, and worse for trying to intellectualize crap. "Ironic distance" is the simultaneous recognition of trash, Two Broke Girls, unfunny and puerile in the extreme for example, and the rationalization manifest in trying to intellectualize it rather than enjoying it for what it is, something you're not honest enough publicly to accept in yourself, let alone trying hopelessly to make a case for its much more increased presence here. Deal with that. Plus the reference to my age, a certain mode of ad hominem, only underscores your paucity of argument.
- basman
January 19, 2013 at 6:45pm
Trust Canada's great Rex Murphy, Dr. Johnson scholar turned acerbic journalist, to bring it all home, Armstrong, Oprah and that succubus celebrity culture: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/01/18/rex-murphy-curtains-for-lance-and-oprah/
- basman
January 19, 2013 at 11:10pm