"Thank God it's over," one USC student said in response to my statement that "American Idol" ran for 15 seasons on FOX.
Typically, I would expect my peers to feel disheartened that a show we have grown up with is coming to an end after shaping our generation's television, music and popular culture as a whole. However, in the case of "American Idol," it is no surprise that people are relieved that the show has finally been put out of its misery.
"Idol" spent its Farewell Season tooting its own horn about its massive influence, so it is unnecessary for me to delve into the show's success any further. We all know "Idol" is the birthplace of some of the biggest careers in music (i.e. Fantasia, Kelly Clarkson, Carrie Underwood, Adam Lambert and Jennifer Hudson), and we know the series had a historic impact on television.
On Tuesday night's retrospective "American Idol: American Dream" special, the series' producers and stars focused on the early days of the show. Particularly, seasons one through eight dominated the conversation, while the later seasons received brief mentions. In fact, there was absolutely no discussion of any specific contestant beyond season 10, with winner Scotty McCreery serving as the most recent "Idol" to appear in the special.
Understandably, "Idol" emphasized the highs of the show, which existed in the earlier seasons, and only cited the judging stints of Ellen DeGeneres, Mariah Carey and Nicki Minaj as the lows. Still, the decline of "Idol" goes far beyond questionable judges.
The truth is, "Idol" began to fall when it lost its simplicity. As the throwback clips rolled in the retrospective special, it became clear that there was something magical about "Idol" in its more humble days. The low budget production of the show allowed viewers to focus on the greenness of the talent, the judges, the stories and the outcomes. There were no celebrity feuds, judges promoting their music videos or contestants with ulterior motives to distract the audience from the show's mission: finding the next big music star.
As the show grew in ratings, it evolved from a shoestring talent search to a glamorous, flashy Hollywood affair, with the aspiring recording artists on the side. This evolution caused the demise of "Idol."
I understand why the show's producers sought to give "Idol" a makeover, and the people behind the scenes deserve an immense amount of respect for keeping the show strong for over a decade. In the present-day television landscape, it is nearly impossible to find the success that "Idol" possessed, even at its worst. That being said, "Idol" probably would not have experienced its worst, had the show not lost its identity.
The transition to a celebrity-driven panel initially worked well. "Idol" hit its stride when Jennifer Lopez and Steven Tyler joined original judge Randy Jackson on Season 10. "Idol" remained the top show in America, and each of the final three contestants — the aforementioned McCreery, runner-up Lauren Alaina, and second runner-up Haley Reinhart — have found success in the music industry.
However, "Idol" quickly lost its footing when "The Voice" emerged with an even stronger and flashier superstar panel. "Idol" attempted to retaliate by hiring Carey, Minaj and Keith Urban; then losing the former two and Jackson; then rehiring Lopez and bringing Harry Connick, Jr. on board. This was a blatant attempt to restore a legitimacy that the show has lacked since Simon Cowell's departure. Despite all these changes, the judging panel paled in comparison to the chemistry and charisma of the coaches on "The Voice." As proven by my segment on this week's episode of The Buzz, the ever-changing panel did not resonate among my peers.
"Idol" also began lacking in its ability to produce stars. In this decade, no winner or finalist has come close to matching the success of Kelly Clarkson, Carrie Underwood or even Ruben Studdard. Granted, "The Voice" has not fared any better in launching a star, but the series outperforms "Idol" with its superstar coaches, glitzy spinning chairs and extravagant battle ring.
It became clear that the winning formula "Idol" relied on for years was starting to crumble, and the show was trying to change into something it never could be. "Idol" cannot compete with "The Voice" in gimmicks, celebrity judges and expensive production. Where "Idol" won was in its rawness and its power to create a star.
If the series ever attempts a comeback — something producers and stars have hinted at on several occasions — "Idol" should go back to basics. Ideally, the show should bring back the original trio of Abdul, Cowell and Jackson. They have great chemistry, and each has a strong ability for recognizing and developing young talent. Even more importantly, "Idol" needs Ryan Seacrest, who has quite frankly held the show together for 15 seasons.
Cowell, whose ego is justifiably bigger now than it was at the start of "Idol," should have the rights to sign the winners and finalists to his label after each season. The current post-"Idol" contractual arrangements do not seem to be working out well, with little-to-no career success of the most recent winners and a legal battle transpiring between the show and Season 11 winner Phillip Phillips. Unlike the show's current industry partners, Cowell has done quite well recently with artists from other talent competitions. Girl group Fifth Harmony placed third on Season 2 of "The X Factor" in 2012 and is the most recent breakthrough success to emerge from a singing competition. Under Cowell's guidance, future Idols could very well reach Fifth Harmony's level of success.
If "Idol" ever makes a return to television — which seems likely after Seacrest's goodbye "for now" on Thursday's finale — the show should avoid being complicated and go back to basics. For me, dawg, the best way for "Idol" to look to the future is to look toward the past.
Reach Associate Entertainment Editor Dustin Sloane here.
Annenberg Media