I've been a bit surprised by the amount of talk there has been in the conservative, and even Catholic, blogosphere, about the recent American Idol show and its outcome. We're not Idol-watchers here; I'm not a big fan of contest shows in general, I'm not a big fan of pop music (and while Thad enjoys some, he's usually not all that interested in the sort of stuff that plays on the average radio station, which is what Idol's music seems to be from people's descriptions of it) and between the various costumes worn by female performers on the show and the usual sort of advertisements that run, I'd rather my teen and preteen girls didn't get exposed to the program.
I understand that the "talking points" of this years' controversy have to do with the notion that the contest boiled down to a "red state/blue state" contest; I share Rod Dreher's opinion that it's unlikely that this was the reality.
That said, though, I have to confess that though my tween and teen girls have no awareness of either Adam Lambert or Kris Allen, they have been a bit smitten by a different contest winner. No, we definitely didn't watch this contest; it's my understanding that the general raunchiness of the Eurovision contests makes American Idol look like a bastion of purity and moral virtue. But when I stumbled across this video clip showing the Eurovision 2009 contest winner performing his original, contest winning song, they were amazed. They have some friends who play violin, and they were pretty awed by this young man's talent:
He may not have the best singing voice in the world, and there's a distinctly 1970s look to the costumes worn by the two blond backup singers. But if American Idol started featuring photogenic young men with outstanding violin skills instead of pop phenoms with vastly differing vocal styles, even my girls would want to watch.
We'd still have to black out the commercials.