I didn't start watching until season 5, so I lack some AI exposure, but I have an analysis of the show many of you may find enlightening. The conclusion I've come to about the show's true goal is that it's all about the voters. They (AI producers) don't truly care whether the contestants are talented or not, they simply have the entire TV audience duped to being volunteer guinea pigs. I've watched Simon give praise on 1 performance and harshly criticize the following one, when it was clear that both performances were about the same in quality. Why, I asked? Consider that their advertisers are constantly collecting consumer influencing data, why should AI be any different? Simon is attempting to influence the TV audience by deliberately being contradictory to consistently good (or bad) performances. AI tabulators provide consumer data to their adverts this way, while at the same time promoting their own talent. Financially, this is known as "double dipping", and is a brilliant marketing product model, regardless of the lack of talent they promote, and isn't illegal!

I read this article with great interest; interesting mostly because of the lack of meat in it. How are former reality show contestants (such as Jason Y., David A., Joanne, etc.) "plants"? How are those who have acted (Syesha, Jason C.) or worked as opening acts (Brooke) "plants"? More specifically, why does this define them as those who have "tried to become famous and failed"? Arguably Carly, Michael, Robbie, Kady, and Kristy Lee "tried and failed"; but it seems to me that only Carly, perhaps, should be disqualifiied, as she and Randy worked at the same label at the same time. Still, the biggest flaw in your logic comes from your Randy Jackson quote regarding "Rocky". This metaphor suggests that AI seeks out totally unknown amateurs. Rocky, however, was not an unknown amateur, but a failed professional boxer, making him most analagous to your biggest target, Carly Smithson. In the end, your tempest in a teacup simply reveals VFTW as what it so obviously is: a forum for those who hate to see others achieve success. Thankfully the "enlightened" 21st century provides an international forum for your brand of pointless, unpleasant bile.

The people you mention may have track records, but if the public don't like them, it's over.

I don't think that many people like Carly, there is something stuck up and snooty about her and she looks weird when she sings. She seems up herself and people

dont like that.

David Cook is really good and so is Jason and so is Sayesha. The industry may be using Idol as a testing ground, but it they fail the test, THAT'S IT!

Also, Brooke White has an album out too- "Songs From The Attic", and a video for a song from the album, Free.

http://www.amazon.com/Songs-Attic-Brooke-White/dp/B000KF0X0W

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJDtI4WClcg

I don't know why, but i just can't stand Carly!! She has to be the worst!

DUDE! she sucks!

Ok. her singing is not too bad, she can carry a tune. But as Simon says, she is a very tense, angry person. That comes over all the time in her performance, and she also has a very good opinion of herself. if anyone criticises her, she has this look, like "Who the hell are you?"

Her teeth look like vampire fangs and I hate the tattoos. Amanda was a lot better than Carly.

The best ones are David Cook, Jason and Sayesha. The others, not so good.

ok, what's funny about this? jason castro was not a singer in cheyenne, right? joane is a plus-sized model and brooke opened for someone... so? most amateur singers have their gigs. apparently jason was there to act and joane was in a beauty contest... so what's the connection with having a record deal or being in the huge world of music industry?

i understand about kristy, carly, michael johns, etc... but joane, jason, and brooke? come on. can't you be more credible. you're starting to sound like a.i. executives themselves.

I'm a Spam Whore.

Wow.

I had no idea.

Canadian Idol has had "plants" before, but in the much smaller Canadian market, it is harder to hide it, so there was just no effort made to do so. One of the kids from The Moffats was on the show (two years in a row, maybe? I'm foggy on this), for example. The voters got their hands on him and flushed him right back down to where he came from.

But this? Wow. This is amazing. I kind of liked Michael Johns and a few of the others. Brooke was a pro? Brooke, who kept making big mistakes and STARTING THE SONG OVER on national TV? THAT is funny. Mistakes happen, but real pros will just brush them aside and continue on as if nothing happened. She DREW MORE ATTENTION TO HER MISTAKES by starting over! Hilarious.

Anyway, American Idol (hell, Idol in general) is definitely starting to feel played out.... but the thing is that there are easy fixes available that would make the show a lot less corny.

1. The lame themes that get even lamer as the show gets close to the end? Ditch 'em. I like the broad-stroked ones like "soul week", "70s week", etc, but "Beatles week" and "Broadway week" have got to go.

2. Let / make the contestants write their own "winning" songs (hell, the top 24 should each write one or two songs). Some will be terrible, but they can't be worse than the "winning" songs they're already given.

3. The idiotic choreographed group numbers have got to go. Group numbers are not that bad (I liked the episode of Canadian Idol this year that was basically a big jam session) but the dancing and clashing of too many voices in unison SUCK.

4. Stop pretending to be serious.