I Watch American Idol and try to relate it to writing in some way.
So, why break from tradition? Let’s look at this week’s Idol and see what we can learn. This week was Movie Week, which I thought was funny since I don’t remember 90%** of the songs performed ever being in movies (**not intended to be a factual statement).
Anyway, I’ve noticed that this year on Idol there are fewer of the theme/artist centric weeks (Beatles, Motown, Country, Big Band, Disco, etc.) in exchange for more of the “express your own personal style” weeks (songs by your personal Idol, Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, movie songs). Basically, this means that Scotty kid (the deep voiced country singer who is probably going to win) gets a MASSIVE break. In the past, he would have been forced to sing the Bee Gees and wear some terrible sequined outfit on Disco night.
However I might feel about Scotty (I actually think he’s cool) I like this change to the show because while the other format was more entertaining and produced way more hilarious flops, this way seems more true to how a creative industry actually works. People want to see you singing the type of music you want to sing (or sell) since that’s what you’re gonna do (or not do) when you’re no longer a contestant on a popular TV show. The show wants to find the best new artist in American (or whoever is gonna sell the most records and make them the most money). So now, we get to choose between contestants who identify with such diverse artists as Sammy Hagar, Nat King Cole, George Strait, and Miley Cyrus (all on the same night).
But, isn't it good to have the theme weeks that force artists to go outside their comfort zone every now and then? I remember thinking Kelly Clarkson was a great singer on season one, but she really shined in a whole new way when she did an awesome number on Big Band night and proved she had the chops to sing in any era.
Wow, I am a dork for Idol, how do I even remember this?
But, it's not like Kelly Clarkson ever put out a Big Band record, so...is showing a range of style really necessary?
The show presents a lot of differing opinions on that question. The judges tell one singer “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” then turn around and tell another to stop “playing it safe” and step outside their comfort zone.
I think writers encounter this to some extent when they go to write a new sample (either a pilot or a spec…the latter of which which I’m doing right now). I sometimes struggle to pick the right show to spec. I like a lot of different shows but since I’m still starting out I want to spec shows that mesh well with the pilots I have written or want to write while not seeming too similar to my original samples. But, maybe I should try for more range? I was reading the new First Person interview on John August’s blog this week, and it came from a writer who made the jump from The Sarah Connor Chronicles to Melrose Place, a jump which got a lot of questions in meetings. So, it would seem like having too much "diversity" in your work is not an asset, but just a source of confusion. On the other hand, the writer also mentioned some disappointment over reading the new show, Georgetown, and loving it, but not having a sample that really worked for it.
So…streamline your samples or diversify to show variety?
In the end, I guess I’ll go with the idea that there is something to be said for perfecting one specific style and that while it is important to push your boundaries, maybe you shouldn't do that until you know what those boundaries are. I think the most well known writers in Hollywood all have specific styles. Aaron Sorkin doesn’t write gross out comedies, Judd Apatow doesn’t write political thrillers, and Diablo Cody doesn’t write period dramas, but they’re all good at bringing something a little different to each new script they write, while staying firmly in genres where we typically identify them.
No comments:
Post a Comment