Australian Idol

Nikki Tranter

The show's own contradictions reveal that even the judges are confused as to just what makes an Australian Idol.

Australian Idol

Airtime: Sundays 7.30pm ET, Mondays 7.30pm ET
Cast: Ian "Dicko" Dickson, Marcia Hines, Mark Holden, James Mathieson, Andrew G
Display Artist: Grundy, Ten Australia
Network: Ten Australia
Creator: Ten Australia
The tears are real because, but for the grace of God, that could be me up there... They're all standing there, begging.
-- Marcia Hines, The Panel, 6 August 2003

It makes for good television, but it has fuck-all to do with music.
-- Renée Geyer, Herald Sun, 5 September 2003

By now, everyone knows what the Idol phenomenon is all about. Popstar wannabes undertake various auditions in front of three judges who critique their performances, before the viewing public decides whether or not they should make it to the finals. Across the globe, the show has spawned some successful hitmakers, and it's likely to do so in Australia as well. Most interesting about the show is the controversy surrounding it, and the show's own contradictions, which reveal that even the judges are confused as to just what makes an Australian Idol.

The Australian version of the show has reached the finals stage, with 12 performers preparing to do battle for a recording contract, and -- more importantly, no doubt -- the designation, "Australian Idol." Over the course of the show, the audience has seen these performers in multiple auditions, and is aware of their individual talents. However, the process through which they have chosen to attempt big time success might prove to be the worst career decision they can make.

The criticism surrounding the show is the same in Australia as it is everywhere else, that the selection process is shallow and has little do with musicianship. Guardian Unlimited columnist Charlotte Raven called the UK's Pop Idol contestants "parad[ing] poppets" (Guardian UK, 19 February 2002), while Australian soul singer Renée Geyer publicly damned the show as "insulting to real musicians" (Herald Sun, 5 September 2003). However, Idol doesn't claim to discover "real" musicians. It doesn't hide the fact that contestants are singers competing for a record deal for the sole purpose of making money for BMG.

The many times that judge -- and BMG executive -- Ian "Dicko" Dickson, has told vocally talented contestants that he won't be able to sell them to the music-buying public demonstrates that ability has little, if anything, to do with it. Of course, singers have been primped, pressed, and stylized to suit industry trends for decades, so whether they are "real" or not is of no consequence here. The problem with this competition is not the contestants; it's with the judges who contradict themselves. Do they want style, personality, image or talent?

The show's standout performer suggests an answer. The gorgeous Courtney Act lost out in her finals audition, but was able to try again in the Wildcard show, in which 10 performers culled earlier in the series were brought back for another shot at the top 12. The barely dressed Act, the creation of self-proclaimed "gender illusionist" Shane Jenek, performed a riotous version of AC/DC's "You Shook Me All Night Long" to a mesmerized panel who said she was daring and beautiful, and praised her as a born entertainer. With nary a word about her vocal talents in her previous auditions, or in this performance, Act was selected as a finalist.

You've got to wonder where exactly this leaves competitors Yolande Jackson, Stu Campbell, Rebecca Tapia, Axle Whitehead and Anton Aktila -- all of whom competed against Act in various shows. With personality to spare and exquisite voices (Tapia, especially), these performers were repeatedly criticized for either being "too rock," "too cabaret," "boring," or, in Aktila's case, looking too much like a cowboy. This despite the fact that Dickson told Aktila, "If there [was] a better R&B voice in this competition, I haven't heard it." Still, Aktila lost, because nothing was gonna beat Act's outrageous style.

Aktila isn't the only contestant to have fallen victim to such contradiction. Campbell was blasted for performing a rock tune in his final, not long after self-proclaimed "rock chick" Kelly Cavuoto was voted by the public into the top 12. Lauren Buckley received praise for her "daring" performance of "Imagine," but Matt Chadwick received a right ribbing for choosing to sing such a crusty old number as Lionel Ritchie's "Truly." The list goes on and on.

The sad thing about the competition though, is how the contestants -- currently on top of the world due to their positions as finalists -- will be feeling in a few weeks time when the winner is chosen and the rest are relegated to has-been-dom. The winners of Australian Idol's predecessor Popstars -- Bardot, Scandal'us, and Scott Cain -- have all but disappeared, leaving a trail of crap songs, underselling albums and empty stadiums behind them. As those kids found out, in this business one season ends and another begins and it's out with the old, in with the new.

Past failures, though, haven't stopped a new crop of wannabes from testing the waters again. Maybe they think 15 minutes of fame is better than none at all? Or perhaps they believe Idol offers the chance to forever live their pop-idol dreams. Whatever the case, it's hard to invest in these contestants, hard to feel moved by their off-stage emotions and passions, because we've seen it all before and it all ended pretty miserably. Idol is unlikely to break this mold. Yes, the single will hit the top of the charts, but this year's winner will quickly be left behind when Australian Idol 2 rolls around.

Then again, shows like Popstars and Idol aren't offering long term careers, they're offering instant stardom -- a promise they will certainly deliver on to the satisfaction of the viewing audience and, in turn, the show's producers. One wonders though, if the winner of Australian Idol will end up the biggest loser of the lot.

So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.