It looks like the votefortheworst.com web site with the backing of Howard Stern are achieving the desired effect of bringing the worst to the top on American Idol. I find this extremely amusing and would like to see Sanjaya Malakar rise to the top of the steaming pile that is American Idol. Besides, who is it going to hurt? The winners rarely achieve high levels of fame anyway. It's usually those who got booted that end up the most successful. Jennifer Hudson is a good example of that.
So, why not vote for the worst? It certainly makes for a funnier show and in the end, the true talent wins the big paycheck anyway regardless of the fact that they get the boot.
Go www.votefortheworst.com !
2007-03-22 03:00:35 · 11 answers · asked by Grampa 3 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Television
I agree....vote for the worst and make a mockery of American Idol....hopefully they will cancel the show after Sanjaya wins.
Eric the Idol expert will be no more!
2007-03-22 03:16:25 · answer #1 · answered by Chris 4 · 2⤊ 4⤋
Ah, the worst of the "its a free country". Aholes are allowed to be aholes without fear of reprisal, and many think its funny. And then some even make lots of money for being that way. Who does it hurt? how about the ones thatget voted off prematurely, limiting theri exposure and stifling their opportunities? How about the millions of people who watch the show and have to put up with watching poor talent week after week, knowing that idiots like Stern and his puppets are maniputlating the voting and forcing that crap upon them. Watching the same poor talent week after week gets stale really fast, maybe to stall people from voting for the worst the producers should throw in a few of the hopefuls every week, they certainly have the time and it would make Seacrest a little less annoying. And you say that the winner rarely achieves high success.....Kelly Clarkson, multiple platinum records, Carrie Underwood multiple platinum, both grammy winners and although you haven't heard much from Rubard or Fantasia yet they are in the works
2007-03-22 03:21:02 · answer #2 · answered by kerfitz 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I disagree with you. Have you seen what's happened to Kelly Clarkson? She beat out Mariah Carey for a grammy! What about Carrie Underwood?
She's won several awards including the ones listed below.
2007 Grammy Best Country Song
2007 Grammy Best Female Country Vocal Performance
2006 Academy of Country Music Single of the Year
2006 Academy of Country Music Top New Female Vocalist
2006 CMA Female Vocalist of the Year
2006 CMA Horizon Award
2006 CMT Music Awards Breakthrough Video of the Year
2006 CMT Music Awards Female Video of the Year
2007-03-22 03:10:08 · answer #3 · answered by Animediva 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I think it's bad because of the length of exposure While Stephanie Edwards really has a good voice, she may not even be remembered by the end of the show. I think the prolonged exposure will help the real singers to get the backing they need. Clive Davis usually picks them up anyway if they are good. I think, like you said tho, they are going to be successful anyway whether or not they get voted off the show. I still don't think it's right tho.
2007-03-22 03:08:02 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
"The winners rarely achieve high levels of fame anyway. It's usually those who got booted that end up the most successful."
Dude, Carrie Underwood and Kelly Clarkston are winners and they have won grammies and plenty of fame and cash. As silly as this show seems to some, its big frickin money.
2007-03-22 03:10:48 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
I don't participate in it, but I can't say that I'm against the idea. I hate the idea of mass producing instant stars and celebrities. There are singers out there struggling, paying their dues, and taking the true and noble road to success. While on the other hand, a person with no ambitions who decided to audtion to some show on a whim, can instantly gain recognition, stardom, and success. America is too obsessed with creating stars rather than letting them EARN it.
2007-03-22 03:15:15 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
i'll give one good reason why NOT vote for the worst.. its because its a contest to determine the BEST singer... people who are actually enjoying this should make their own reality show and take Sanjaya with them...
2007-03-22 03:13:27 · answer #7 · answered by ionne 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I personally think it's pretty pathetic to spend time and effort on a show that you don't even like, I don't watch the show, but if you think it's fun to ruin things for people that do, and that's all you have to do with your time have fun.
2007-03-22 03:07:03 · answer #8 · answered by ○•○•Cassie•○•○ 6 · 3⤊ 3⤋
That's not how the show is intended to be. It's going to hurt the one who is the best singer.
2007-03-22 03:19:47 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
I hope you are enjoying it. It frustrates the loyal viewers. This isn't even remotely funny.
2007-03-22 03:08:36 · answer #10 · answered by robee 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋