orry kids, this "reality TV fad" is much more than that. I have a feeling reality TV -- with its small budgets, simple premises, and endless supply of catty twentysomethings waiting their turn for the Wheel of Fame -- will be around for quite a while. In America, where entertainment is everything, everybody wants to be entertainment (i.e. famous). Reality TV is their chance. We watch because we identify with the protagonists (some good casting helps with this) -- we want to be stars.


American Idol probably typifies this more than any other reality TV show -- the prize is essentially an extension of your fame, your mediated self pushed into other mediums for maximum exposure. Ideally, fans will be pulled along by the vicarious thrill that a regular Joe or Jane made it (and with their help!). It's an ingenious marketing move as well -- consumers have a stake in the success of these performers -- Kelly Clarkson's platinum record makes us ALL winners.


But will it work? Sure, Clarkson has experienced early success, but it could be fleeting. American Idol runner-up Justin Guarini's album bombed, as did the American Idol movie. Industry insiders have their doubts about the staying power of new Idols Clay Aiken and Ruben Studdard. Airplay Monitor editor Sean Ross (quoted in USA Today) sums it up quite nicely: "Audiences enjoy being part of the American Idol process, with its escalating melodrama and constant coverage. It's like following your favorite baseball team through the summer. But at a certain point, the drama fades, and you're left with just the songs and the artists. And unplugged from the television show, those songs and artists aren't as captivating. I think it's inevitable that, unless a true great is discovered from this show, there will be diminishing returns."


Ross's synopsis might be a little too optimistic of the record industry ("it's the music, maaaan"), but he does point out that a chasm exists between the qualities of American Idol finalists and those of successful pop stars. This split goes right to the heart of the very process of the show: can America successfully select its own pop stars? What gets someone to the finals of American Idol , and what gets someone on heavy TRL rotation?


Survivor brought us the concept of voting contestants off a show; American Idol democratized the process, putting the power in the hands of the viewer. One major appeal of reality TV is the notion that ANYBODY (or at least someone you know) could be on the show. They could be us. These aren't actors, who cultivate fame as an occupation -- they are real people, chosen by the gods (and Paula Abdul) for the ultimate reward: prime time television. These people must DESERVE their bounty, and that doesn't mean being beautiful or rich or even incredibly talented. Getting caught up in American Idol requires identification on the part of the viewer -- it's part of the fun. Christina Aguilera would never make it to the finals -- she's too attractive, too perfect, too much of a POP STAR. She doesn't deserve the blessing of the masses: she's the aristocracy, she should already be on top. Ideally, democracy gives the masses representation, and this is just how American Idol functions. Thus, the dreamy-yet-quirky Justin Guarini, the perky girl-next-door Kelly Clarkson, nerdy Clay Aiken, and the affably overweight Ruben Studdard. They reflect the dreams of the masses of Americans who could be famous but for a few minor imperfections (or so we would like to believe). They are diamonds in the rough, overlooked by the stringent standards of the machinery of fame. It is up to us to correct this process, to give a voice (however overwrought) to the imperfect of society. True, our idols manage to stand out from the pack, but they could never beat the dreamboats of O-Town.


All this adds up to pop stars who don't look like pop stars. The British Idol results are different, with sexy finalists burning up the charts. Maybe an ingrained sense of social hierarchy influences the British choices; maybe the Brits just know what they want a little bit better than the Yanks. All I know is that, from reading William Swygart's UK Chart Roundup, British charts make no fucking sense to me, so I won't try to speculate. In any case American Idols are put in the awkward situation of being regular folks trying to assume a new persona once the show has ended and the narrative drama has subsided. Thus, Kelly's unconvincing vampy makeover and Clay's embarrassing stab at coverboy notoriety (happy trail, anyone?). We want our pop stars hot, sexy, and in our face. We want controversy. Dammit, we want to be entertained. We want Xtina schizophrenic skanking. We want Justin and Britney stabbing each other in the back. We reward the cream of the average with stardom, and then abandon them for squawking hotties. The Idols are put in an impossible bind: be stars, but be regular people too.


This problem could conceivably be resolved by appealing to a more heartfelt, "authentic" style like that of Avril Lavigne or John Mayer. Avril and John aren't trying to be stars, they just want to make music (or so says their press packets). But, paradoxically, the very process of American Idol undermines this approach -- everyone knows that once the Idols win, they are subjected to the rigors of the pop machine. The transparent process leaves only the pre-fab pop avenue open for our poor heroes, a road they simply are not equipped to handle.


There is perhaps an even more fundamental catch-22 to the American Idol process -- demographics. The TV show drew in millions of viewers of many age, race, and income levels. Winners must have a broad appeal to achieve. This is simply not how pop music works. Pop works with niche marketing, focus groups, and trend testing. Broad-based appeal in pop has largely been abandoned -- it's simply too hard to reconcile the tastes of a 14-year-old suburban tween and a working class single mother of three. Kelly had early success with anachronistic singles in a pop ballad format (something Ricky Martin couldn't pull off), but she also had the hype of the show behind her. The similar products of Ruben and Clay make most of their airplay on adult contemporary station, which everyone knows is a financial dead end. The people who buy the most music are ages 10 to 24, and they like snap and crackle in their pop. Thus the awkward move toward fluorescent flamboyance by Kelly Clarkson, a move that abandons the core of her television support. It's a desperate move, something quite out of character for the neighborhood sweetie who won America's hearts and votes. Clay and Ruben will no doubt undergo similar shifts in style -- will America feel abandoned? Or perhaps we have abandoned our Idols?


This boils down to a fundamental flaw in American Idol : it simply cannot produce viable American pop stars. Ironically, the future failure of our Idols will doom the successful show that spawned them: if we can't count on democracy, we must give in to the institutional bureaucracy to give us what we want, even when we don't know we want it (it appears we've already done the same in American politics). Exposed as a doomed enterprise in populist pop, American Idol must unfortunately go the way of Survivor, a show that only the losers discuss at the water cooler. Pop is better left to the professionals.