Is there anything left to say about Simon Cowell? The porcelain veneers, snide comments and high-waisted pants have all been done to death already, so I'll try to avoid returning to such well-trodden ground. Simon's been in the news a lot lately, with his finger in more pies than Mr Kipling. Eoghan Quigg's debut album, Alexandra Burke's US record deal, American Idol over-running, and of course the discovery of one-woman weep machine Susan Boyle, have all helped to keep Simon's profile higher than ever in recent weeks.
So it should come as no surprise that once again the knives are out for the supercilious A&R exec-turned media mogul.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a big fan. His mangled metaphors and repetitive analogies are matched only by his diffident rudeness in terms of irritation factor. In particular I find his all-too-evident indifference to the people involved especially off-putting - just watch how often he has to be told what was just said by a contestant, because he stopped listening the moment the camera was off him.
But despite all this, I can't help but feel the need to defend him when the other media figures go on the attack. This week, Jon McClure, lead singer of Reverend And The Makers branded Simon "Satan", accusing him of only being in the music business for himself and to make money. Which is a little like pointing out that Kate Moss is a little thin. He's an A&R man - his job (ever since it was handed to him on a plate by his Dad) has always been to find artists that will make money for the label. What he's managed to do is turn it into a role that people are willing to sit and watch him do. I'm just thankful he didn't choose a career in colonoscopy.
The problem with people like Jon McClure is that, whilst integrity and a life on the fringe are all well and good, a career in music is still a career. It pays the bills, it covers the mortgage, and if you're really lucky it'll buy you a whole lot else besides. Plus, there's something astonishingly arrogant about anyone who can breezily dismiss all of these shows and their contestants as "soulless". On behalf of Kelly Clarkson, Jennifer Hudson, Fantasia and Leona Lewis, I'd beg to differ. Similarly, when commenting that the "winner of his shows just meet certain criteria" he shows just how clueless he is. Of course there are criteria - most popular, highest audience vote...
It seems that people just want to cast Simon as the bad guy, and his shoulders are broad enough to carry the label. TV presenter, actor, singer and professional gay John Barrowman was interviewed on Digital Spy this week and happily concurred that Simon's shows place the emphasis on humiliating people. But do they? Sure, the cameras are there, and the editing team are on stand-by to find the best stories, but I've never seen anyone holding a gun to the contestants' heads. No-one's forcing them to be there. They've got their reasons, and they're there on that stage (or in that conference centre) because they're drawn to the bright lights like deluded mosquitoes.
There's an unspoken contract here - their dignity in exchange for whatever degree of fame or infamy they can secure off the back of their appearance. It's not really a theatre of cruelty, so much as a set of Do-It-Yourself village stocks. And every once in a while, as last weekend proved, someone surprises us by turning the tables and making us feel like the idiots instead.
Simon isn't the villain here. It's all a circus, and he's the ringmaster, clown and lion tamer, all rolled into one. And I can't think of anyone better to play the part.
No comments:
Post a Comment