American Idolatry

So, tonight's the big night that the new season of "American Idol" starts (or maybe last night, by the time I get this posted), and everyone will be tuning in to see wave after wave of people who really want to be stars. I seem to recall that I attempted to write about this topic at the beginning of last season, when a young woman came on the tryouts with (like so many) virtually no singing ability whatsoever, but unlike most of the other bad singers, she knew that she could not sing! She explained to the judges that it would be really cool if the next American Idol was someone who had no singing ability at the beginning, but in the course of the show, learned how to sing!

Like so many who are clueless in other ways, she was tossed out. The thing that's odd about these people to me is how surprised they are to be tossed out! I mean really, don't most of the people watch the show before they try out? I consider myself to be a pretty good singer, but I know I'm not destined to be famous for my singing ability, because it's slightly above average at best. I know I wouldn't make it, because despite being not awful, I have a realistic view of my own abilities, and a realistic view of Simon Cowell. How do these people not know that they're horrible singers? How is it that they think they can stand before those judges and be praised when even many good singers get booted, and more than a few of those who are good enough to make it on the show get told by the judges that they've got some serious work to do have a chance to be the winner? So many people come out of the room with the judges with tears streaming down their faces, crying out something along the lines of "I can't believe that they were so mean!" Seriously, have you watched the show before you tried out?

But as usual, I'm taking a circuitous route to my main topic. While my first admonition for would-be idols is a tiny dose of realism in the form of (1) realize you probably don't sing as well as you think you do, (2) expect to be told that you are the worst singer in the world and be made fun of on national television, there are some things I would also like to say in comfort to the losers.

What portion of the people in the world today who are famous for their singing got their start on "American Idol"? I think I heard it said that this is season seven, so at most, if everyone who made it as one of the 12 contestants (I don't watch the show, only the tryouts, so sorry if I'm getting details wrong) became famous, that's only about 70 people out of hundreds and hundreds of recording artists. Being on "American Idol" is not the normal way to become famous. Just a few years back, the show didn't even exist, and there were still people singing for a living. If you really want to be a professional singer, and you really have the talent to do it, you don't need reality television to get there.

The thing that I pause to mention, but only a little because in some ways it's the most important point of all, is that you don't even really need singing talent to become a star. I remember back in the '90s, I heard many a deejay comment after playing a Sugar Ray song, "Crap, if that's what a rock star sounds like, I could do it!" That was just one band out of many that could be listed. Rage Against The Machine, Cake, Bob Dylan, Violent Femmes, all of these and many more are great bands/musicians that don't sing pretty, but it's not about singing pretty, is it? I'm a big fan of Johnny Cash, and towards the end of his life, when health problems caused his voice to start to fail him, he did some powerful work in the studio. Sure, you can't be completely tone deaf (well, a rapper could be, I suppose, but that's a musical form with its own challenges), but what really counts to most people who listen to music is that it speaks to them emotionally. Billy Corgan of The Smashing Pumpkins has the ability to sing beautifully, but a lot of his songs are little more than screeching and yelling into the mike, and his fans love it all.

Last year during the tryouts, there was also a teenage boy who when kicked out complained through tears that all he wanted to do was "be famous". This is the biggest mystery of all to me, and yet, it is the thing that makes the title of the show seem so particularly apropos. In the end, although one has to be a great singer in order to be the next American Idol, the show isn't about people who want to be singers. No, the show is people who already are singers trying to show that they are better singers than other contestants. For both those who can and cannot sing, the show is about people who want to be famous. Face it, there are a lot of people in the world today who would much rather be the next William Hung than be an unknown face who sings beautifully in their church choir or local musical theatre. There's this odd draw to being a person who, when they go down the street, people point and shout, "Hey, it's that famous person!"

Why? Why do people want that? Because it works out so well for Britney Spears? Because fame brings out the best in Amy Winehouse? Because of the great way that fame changed the life of Kurt Cobain? When I look at the way famous people live their lives, it seems like the definition of it is having thousands of people in the world who care about the way you live your life, but don't really care about you. Famous people have the whole world following their every move, but never really knowing them in a personal way. As for me, I would rather be given a hug by one person who really knows me than have a standing ovation by 50,000 complete strangers. Does that make me weird? How many famous people are there that not only have a successful career, but a stable personal life? It seems pretty rare.

I guess what I'm saying is that for those who really want to be a famous singer, don't bother with "American Idol" unless you're prepared to have your ego crushed. And if you think you are truly willing to lay down your life as a sacrifice on the altar of fame, be sure, because you may very well have to give up your life. As for me, I'm just happy if my kids like my singing.

10 things about me

Hmph, more like 42, if you ask me. Marauder has once again tagged me for one of these things because he knows I often reply against my better judgment.

1. What were you doing 10 years ago?

I had recently gotten married, and was working for a mortgage company, which I considered to be my first "real job". It was one of those magical times that people talk about where we lived in a small apartment with our only furniture being a deck lounge for a sofa and a futon mattress for a bed, and of course it was one of the happier times in our lives, living so simply. As a bit of technological nostalgia, we didn't own a computer, so if we wanted to check our e-mails, we had to use my father-in-law's computer, which had a 16 MHz processor running Windows 3.1. Of course even then it was out-of date, but it got the job done.

2. What were you doing one year ago?

I was still working at my job at a missionary organization as a statistician, but was in the process of looking for a secular job that would pay more so I could better support my family. My kids were just starting their first year of school (I have twins, for those not in the know), and in my spare time I was following the lonelygirl15 series, which had recently been revealed to be a hoax, but fascinated me for being a sort of new art form. On the tech note, so long as I did it above, I was doing most of my work on an 833 MHz machine running Windows ME using Office 2000 and SQL. As of now, I have a secular job in I.T. working on a 3.0 GHz machine running Windows NT Professional, I do a lot of my work in PHP and JavaScript, and will soon be training my co-workers in how to understand Office 2007.

3. What are five snacks you enjoy?

• Starbucks pumpkin scones
• Salt & vinegar potato chips
• Jalapeño poppers
• Frosted mini-wheats
• M&Ms

4. What are five songs you know the lyrics to?

Sheesh, like Marauder, I'm a lyrics freak, so I know a lot of lyrics. It might be more to the point to ask for five albums I know the lyrics to. For instance, if I get a song from the Beatles' White Album stick in my head, I'll usually run through the entire album mentally. Let me think of some unusual songs I know...

• "Penis Song" by Eric Idle
• "Fidelity Fiduciary Bank" from Mary Poppins
• "De Colores" traditional Spanish folk song
• "different town" by Strong Bad and TMBG
• The Spongebob Squarepants theme
  

5. Five Things You Would Do If You Were A Millionaire

• Invest in real estate.
• Get a graduate degree.
• Travel around the world.
• Give $1,000 to 1,000 people and tell them to change the world.
• Never wear the same pair of socks twice.

6. Five Things Your Kids Have Taught You

• Sometimes having a good laugh is as important as actually being funny. The humor of a four-year-old seldom makes sense, but it's always funny to them.
• Macaroni and cheese is always a good meal choice when in doubt. Goes without saying.
• All animals are really cool. One of my daughters loves dogs, but she'll be nearly as excited about touching a spider as a puppy.
• There's inherent excitement in trying something new and different. 99% of the time, my kids ride in my wife's car, but on the rare occasions that I've moved their car seats to my car, even a trip to the grocery store is an adventure to them.
• Having my own children has taught me a lot about how God looks at us as His children.

7. Five Things You Like To Do

• Constructing artificial languages.
• Studying typefaces.
• Solving British crosswords.
• Debating philosophy.
• Writing crap like this blog.

8. Five Things You Would Never Wear

Never? I don't know that I can imagine, let's see...

• A toupee. If I ever go bald, I hope to do so with dignity.
• A nosering. I had been considering getting my nose pierced shortly before I first met my wife, and she told me she didn't like piercings. I don't even wear my earrings anymore.
• More tattoos. On a semi-related note, I had two tattoos when I met my wife, and have abstained from getting additional ones. Most people who have tattoos seem to have several, as it's actually sort of addicting in a way that's hard to explain. While I'm happy with the ones I have, I realized that there's something oxymoronic and silly about making a permanent fashion statement.
• A pair of shoes that cost more than a day's wage.
  
• A speedo. Ew.
  

9. Five Favorite Toys

• I have this windup toy that is sort of hard to describe. Ah, here it is, the Critter. For some reason the thing cracks me up to no end.
• The Rubik's Cube. I couldn't solve I back in the day when it was hot, but eventually figured out how to solve it (although not very fast) about five years or so after its heyday. A fun mental exercise in algorithmic processes.
• Scrabble. (Does a board game count as a toy?)
• Kittens. Awesome.
  
• This blog.
  

10. Five Things You Hate To Do

• Being forced to come up with five of everything
  

Okay, I tag Pervez Musharraf, the unknown person who is in current possession of my senior class ring, Bertie Wooster, Ganesha, and the concept of Lazer Tag.

Protesting protestantism

There's something I love about irony.

If you ask an evangelical protestant Christian why they are not Catholic, they'll probably have a short list of things that they perceive as being somehow wrong with the Catholic Church. Now, I don't have a source for much of what I'm going to say here, only personal experience from having now lived a fair portion of my life among Protestants, you'll just have to take my word for it if you're not in the same sorts of social circles in which I tend to find myself.

What's wrong with the Catholic Church? Well, it tends to boil down to authority. Maybe it's an American thing, since the U.S. is a country that was largely founded on the rejection of supposed divine authority, but there is this feeling that it is clearly wrong to have a person (a.k.a. The Pope, or maybe your local priest) who tells you what to think when it comes to spiritual matters. The Church (I'll henceforth use a capital "C" when referring to the Catholic Church) apparently has all these rules that you have to follow. The Bible has a specific meaning that the Church teaches; worship is done in a style that the Church dictates; communion, baptism and various other rituals are carried out with a specified liturgy the Church prescribes; etc. Sure, there are other issues, but aside from a few deeper theological issues that most people don't really fully understand anyway, most of it boils down to the fact that rather than a free church in which we all are equals and exist on the same level, the Church has this complicated hierarchy of authority figures that dictate every aspect of your faith life.

The irony in this all is that in the end, most of our evangelical protestant churches have discarded this sort of structured hierarchy in return for a hidden, more vaguely-defined one. Even early on in my experience as a Christian, the first church I ever attended had special meetings to welcome newcomers into their congregation. I actually remember very little about those classes except for one thing that I thought odd at the time. The pastor who was running the class repeatedly informed us, in an odd manner that seemed proudly sly, that "At this church..." (subtle dramatic pause) "...we don't wear ties!" Apparently having grown up in a much more formal church, this guy was very interested in this fact, and seemed to be sure that everyone else would be as well. Big whoop, right?

Yet, there was something about this that in a way he never admitted, perhaps least of all to himself, was indeed a big deal. At the time, I always suspected that the fact that he even brought it up implied that it was a big deal to him. I thought, "You know, I wonder if he'd prefer to wear a tie anyway?" Maybe that's it, and maybe it's one of the smallest examples of the sort of thing I'm talking about. Sure, he doesn't have to wear a tie, but I suspect that although it's not written down anywhere, it is the case that he is not allowed to wear a tie. Not that this is solely a church thing; I've worked in offices with relaxed dress policies, and people tend to give you dirty looks if you show up wearing a tie.

But the institutionalization doesn't stop with an unstated dress code, people talk about how more traditional churches have rituals and liturgy, and sing old traditional songs. At our church, we have once again our own unstated liturgical service, and it's one that's similar to every evangelical church I've attended in my dozen or so years as a Christian.

At the appointed time for church to start, the worship leader will get up on the stage with the band, take his guitar and welcome everyone to church. He will welcome everyone to stand, which is not expressly required, but everyone with the exception of a few elderly people and those in wheelchairs will do so. Most people will show up five to ten minutes later, perhaps as much as twenty minutes if they have children. Around this time, the band will pause and an associate pastor or perhaps a deacon will walk onto the stage. He will welcome everyone again, compliment the band, and invite everyone to sit down. A short speech will be given about upcoming events, the need for more volunteers in children's ministry, and an admonition to visitors not to give money for the offering, but merely fill out a visitor card and drop it on the bag. He says a short prayer, and the band plays a song while the ushers pass the offering bags around. Everyone is asked to stand again, one more song is played, the worship leader asks everyone to shake hands with their neighbor, and everyone sits down as the senior pastor takes the stage and the band exits. The sermon opens with a bad joke or perhaps a humorous movie clip on the screen. Everyone pulls out their sermon notes, which consist of three bullet points with a missing word or phrase to fill in. After about forty-five minutes of talking, the pastor apologizes for his sermon being "so long", wraps it up and excuses everyone. People with children pick them up; every child has a craft project in a white paper sack with a Bible verse sticker on it. People mill about on the patio eating donuts if it's an a.m. service, cookies if it's p.m., and either way there is also coffee, juice and water.

Deviate from the above in any way, and the congregation will freak out. I had a pastor whose wife was a ballet instructor, and at one service, during the music phase, some dancers came out on stage and did a little routine. In principle, there's nothing wrong with this, but departing from routine was bizarre, and a few people got up and left.

Now, there's nothing wrong with routine actually. Like I said above, these things happen in the secular world, too. What about the deeper issues of theology? Surely those are the real vital ones, right? In the Church, if the Pope says things are a certain way, then that's the way they are, and supposedly, that's bad to have a single person driving and defining faith for a large group of other people.

First of all, it has to be understood, as I myself did not understand until a few years ago, that the Pope's every word is not somehow law on par with scripture. At times, the Pope does choose to speak with such authority, but most of the time, he's a lot like a senior pastor of a worldwide church, simply being there to guide and teach like any Protestant pastor would do.

Second of all, who says our little local churches are so different? When my pastor stands up at the lectern on a Sunday morning and says "Jesus is trying to say such-and-such through this passage of scripture," is it at all appropriate or acceptable for me to stand up at my seat in the congregation and say, "Excuse me, but I disagree with your interpretation?" Of course not (in general: as I have mentioned elsewhere, my church does a yearly "open mike" service where anyone can ask the pastor any question they want), that would be incredibly out of the norm; the church would sooner stop serving coffee on the patio!

Lastly, there are a few things to be said about this. Most churches, including my own, have a "statement of faith" which is a document which outlines our theological position. Anyone who wants to join the church has to read the document and sign a statement saying that they agree with it and will not oppose it within the church. While it may seem to some to be a shade totalitarian, it makes sense that you would have such an instrument to foster unity in the church. If you don't agree with it before you join, why would you want to join? If you come to an understanding that disagrees with it after joining, why would you want to stay? At the same time, if you have a question about an issue, there is no rule against discussing it with a pastor or fellow member of the congregation, only against actively opposing it from within the church.

Many things that I have said here in my blog would shock numerous people at my church, (many drop their jaw at the mention that I'm a registered Democrat, which I think is the least of my issues) although I don't keep the existence of this blog a secret; I don't think anyone from my church reads it. If I were to say some of the things I have said in this blog at any sort of official church meeting, I think it's possible I might lose my membership, I'm not sure, but I think it would be fair, actually. Still, I have the right to say whatever I want outside of church, and the thing of it is, that doesn't make me any different from Catholics. In truth, you'd be hard-pressed to find a Catholic that has complete and undying devotion to the Pope; most I have met admire and respect him, but also have occasional issues on which they respectfully disagree with him.

Is the pastor of a church just a little Pope? Sure, we Protestants recognize that the pastorate and the laity are two categories of people between whom God makes no strong distinction. At the church picnic, he's just another guy you josh around with, chat about work, play frisbee with, etc. But on Sunday morning, he's the one standing on the stage, telling everyone what the Bible means, and while you may share the same theological position as he does, you're not going to take his place on the stage Sunday morning as easily as you took his place in line for the hot dogs Saturday afternoon. While the board of elders (or whatever) can have him replaced if necessary, in a very real way, while he is in office, the pastor is the church.

TV or MTV? That really is the question!

Today over lunch, a friend of mine mentioned that today is the 25th anniversary of MTV. He joked, "I wonder how many people know that MTV stands for something?"

Of course, what he meant is that MTV is an abbreviation of "Music TeleVision". Most people know that MTV stands for something, although it's not always clear exactly what. The point that the "M" stands for music seems like it ought to give a hint that MTV stands for bringing music to cable television, but anyone turning on MTV at any point in its history might have reason to doubt that.

In its early days, I'm sure there were many people of varied ages and backgrounds who, upon tuning in, could be found to declare, "THAT'S not music!" While these people might be written off as "fuddy-duddies" (and I fear only a true fuddy-duddy would actually use the term) there is an innate problem with music in that few people like all kinds of music, so a radio or video station can play a little bit of everything and manage to find something to turn everybody off some of the time, or play a very specialized selection of music and therefore turn somebody off all of the time. Back when I was in high school, and I actually had MTV, I wasn't a big fan of either rap or metal, which made up a large portion of what music was played on MTV. Although I've since grown to appreciate both of these musical genres in their own ways, I probably still wouldn't sit and listen to either kind of music for extended periods of time.

The real issue of why MTV fails at actually being a music channel (the real point of this train of thought) isn't the genres they choose to air. If that were true, 95% of the music radio stations that are out there would cease to exist. Stations play nothing but metal, rap, R&B, "classic" rock, "oldies" rock, "alternative" rock, "hard" rock, "soft" rock, classical, jazz, or polka, and they get along just fine. The problem isn't the kind of music, it's the fact that it *is* music.

It seems like it was just a few years ago that MTV launched this major ad campaign in which they heralded the forthcoming "MTV2" which was going to be a cable TV station dedicated to (catch this...) music. It was a funny moment in the history of MTV for myself and many of my friends who looked nostalgically back on MTV's early days; MTV was essentially admitting that MTV wasn't music television. Tune in to see what's on MTV at any given time in the last ten years or so (maybe longer) and rather than catching a music video, you might see the latest episode of "The Real World", "Cribs", "Pimp My Ride", or "Celebrity Deathmatch". This is what MTV stands for, they stand for a lifestyle of some sort, and that lifestyle may or may not have anything to do with music. There's nothing wrong with this per se. These days, most cable channels (and even a few traditional broadcast channels) stand for a lifestyle, and it may even be admirable. If you're really into food, you watch the Food Network. If you're into partying and having a really great car, watch MTV. If you're gay, I think you watch Bravo. Your television watching habits become a part of your culture, and helps you build identity.

So, MTV2 was supposedly for people who like music, right? But wait, they're showing "Celebrity Deathmatch" too? A cartoon called "Where My Dogs At?" and "Wonder Showzen", which is not the first phenomenon I've heard called "Like Sesame Street on crack", but seems to fit it better than anything I can recall. Where did the music go?

See, the real problem, I think, is encapsulated by something from the early days of another cable channel, Comedy Central. They used to have a show in the early days called "Short Attention Span Theater" which was hosted (at the time I used to watch it) by Jon Stewart. While it was an apt title of that show--which, like many early Comedy Central shows, played short clips of stand up comedians around two to four minutes long--sometimes it seems like an appropriate description of the original format of MTV.

Less like your standard sorts of television, with hour- and half-hour-long shows, and more like radio, with a constant stream of five-odd-minute musical presentations, MTV was in a way the ideal television for people with short attention spans. Can't get yourself to concentrate on a complicated 24 minutes of "WKRP in Cincinnati"? Maybe you'd rather watch six minutes of Billy Idol rocking out to cool special effects shots and light shows? Maybe Madonna's latest attempt to be shocking that only further numbs you to the very concept of "shocking"? I know, how about Van Halen's "Jump" for the five hundredth time? That one never gets old!

Well, the way I see it, MTV ends up being the solution for viewers with short attention spans, and thus at the same time, their own downfall. If they had existed in the days before TV remote controls, maybe they would have stood a chance, but the attention-span-deprived viewer is also the one whose itchy trigger thumb is ever hovering over the channel-changing buttons, waiting for any excuse to bolt. When that first commercial comes on five minutes into "The Cosby Show", you're going to hang around because you want to know how Theo's date turns out. On MTV, when the commercial kicks in, the "show" you were watching is already over. In fact, even if the video you were raptly watching is followed by another video, it may be one you don't care about, and off you go! While with regular TV, if it can get you hooked, it's got you for thirty minutes, MTV can only keep you enthralled until the current song ends. Maybe not even that long, if you've already seen the video and don't care to see it again.

Viewers love the early MTV format, but it doesn't suck them in the way a successful television presentation really needs to. Witness the success of daytime soap operas and prime-time miniseries: what else can account for such notoriously mediocre TV having such a devoted following except the fact that these are designed to drag you back, glued to the screen, day after day? Bring the viewers back, make them watch compulsively, and the advertising dollars flood in. The only reason radio stations work is that most people listen to them in their cars, or at other times when they are stuck someplace for an indeterminate amount of time.

For there to be a station like the early MTV that's just about the music, there has to be a company that doesn't care how much money they make in producing a cable TV channel. I don't know who's out there like that.