Effusive Praise for Mediocrity

I watch "America's Got Talent" every week, but the show confuses me. Piers Morgan buzzes a juggler off the show if he misses one ball, or a magician if he fumbles a single card, but singers get a free pass. A singer can utterly butcher a song, flat, toneless, barely controlling her breathing, a 65% rendition of a song done far better by the original artist, and Morgan and the other judges praise their courage and improvement. Why are the standards so much lower for vocalists?

Last week a female contestant covered "Right Now" by Carrie Underwood. She shouted the chorus and was painfully flat in the first verse, but somehow the panel gave her massive credit for showing up. A young man did a county fair talent show version of John Mayer, miserable and mediocre, and you'd have thought he nailed it. An unknown singer ought to be exceptional to be passed forward, because everybody thinks they can sing. American Idol and its various imitators have given far too many people false hope. Hope is a good thing, but not when it's based on delusion and low standards.

Complicating things even further is the fact that many popular, successful acts aren't that talented. Musicians are so digitally enhanced and overdubbed in the studio that many careers are forged simply because the "artist" looks good vamping in a video. They even lip-synch in live performances. It's fundamentally dishonest. A performer that is the authentic, total package is rare.

I was stunned by the 10-year-old girl who sang a classical song, Jackie Evancho from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. She truly had a stunning voice. Some of the performer who advance on the show get far too much credit merely for getting through a 90-second performance. I hope next time she performs a crossover tune, a popular ballad, to give the audience a broader frame of reference for appreciating her talent. It will make the difference between true artistry and singing well enough more apparent.