Originally Posted by Marc Novoselec
It's not to say that ALL participants are mediocre, you get plenty of great performers at the most unassuming open mic nights, those two (and others) are the 'cream that rose to the top', but what would they have done if not for AI? Nothing? Something? Everything was given to them to do, come on, even the losers get gigs out of that show!



The "losers" are placing 3rd or 4th out of 100,000 who auditioned and 50 who even got to go to Hollywood. Not all of the top 10 are going to make it. In reality, the entire "package" to make it (and sell CDs) only happens to one or two people per year who are in the top 5.

Again, giving these people an opportunity is bad why? Because YOU didn't get the opportunity? Because they didn't write the songs? It just sounds so conceited that you would deny opportunities to others just because you didn't get it or that YOUR assessment of the best didn't get the opportunity. Platinum-selling artists are not "born". They are manufactured: great songs, great performances, great recordings, and plenty of the big, ugly marketing machine behind them.

Based on some of the recent songs written by artists (and following your logic), I could certainly argue that artists should NOT write. They are mostly "mediocre" writers and are therefore denying opportunities to much better songwriters than them. Why should they get mediocre songs recorded just because they wrote them? They should simply perform and leave songwriting to the songwriters. You would get better songs.





Larry
http://www.audibleresponse.com
http://www.myspace.com/larrywilliamsproductions
...now writing/producing with Natascha: http://www.myspace.com/nataschacorrigan