I wasn’t expecting to discuss anything post-season where American Idol was concerned. But I have people watching my back here on CliqueClack. (Lord knows someone needs to monitor my activities … uhm … I mean … watch my back.) This particular rant post comes courtesy of my CC buddy Chuck Duncan. You can thank him for instigating what you’re reading. Please send your cards, letters and otherwise to: Chuck Wash, c/o CliqueClack.

Think about it a minute: There was a lot going on even before the start of Idol’s latest season got underway. (Judge in-fighting, format changes, talk of doing away with mentors.) So why would I think anything different post season finale? Of course the drama continues. And, for a change of pace, it doesn’t involve sniping cat fighting between Nicki Minaj and Mariah Carey. (Surprise!)

The Current Big News? Idol season 3 alum and success story Jennifer Hudson will be sitting behind the judges’ table next season. Additionally, the two other spots (there will only be three judges on the upcoming season, not four) are for season 1 winner (and success story in her own right) Kelly Clarkson and one of two past contestants, Adam Lambert or Clay Aiken.

My immediate reaction on hearing this? *ugh* … with an appropriate lower case “u” in the interjection.

I’ll admit: After all the hoopla of prestige/celebrity/”musically proficient” judges, ad nauseam, I understand going forward why Idol wants to get back to basics when it comes to those who critique the show’s contestants. And, honestly, the first folks who came to my mind past contestant-wise included Jennifer Hudson (Grammy Award-winner and more), Kelly Clarkson (multi award winner) along with the most lauded Idol contestant of them all Carrie Underwood who has more than a bevy of awards under her belt. Why them? Easy. They’re all success stories who came out of the tutelage of American Idol. Who better to put at those spots?

But are they really fit to sit in judgment? As successes — and at first glance — they certainly appear to be. They’ve made their industry bones and it would seem they’re qualified to hold the positions. But I’m not buying what Idol is selling, that they’re not only (possibly) the best folks for the job but will bring back some of the attractiveness and likability to the aging program.

Each of the names above came onto Idol dry and with relatively little musical history behind them. They were wide-eyed with hope. When their stints were over on the show, they either won the coveted prize or they got recruited, each one receiving representation, coaching and schooling in the industry. The rest is history: Music up the wazoo (recording, writing, concerts and more), film, television, celebrity, et cetera. And that leads right up to the The $10,000 Question: Does any of that really qualify them to assess incoming talent?

No. Here’s why:

Each of those Idol alumni have their own set of rules and standards and experiences to glean from musically. They have blinders on, focused to their unique viewpoints only. They do not have the benefit of a producer’s perspective — such as a Jimmy Iovine, for example — to pass on the type of experience that would look beyond their personal perspectives. That’s only natural. Overall, they will gravitate to what they know first-hand in critiquing contestants, possibly coaching or offering advice to individuals not on what would be best, but on what they see based on their past experiences as performers and where it’s led them.

Granted: At times Randy Jackson (annoying as his critiques were on occasion) offered some good advice and even peppered his commentary with blistering vitriol. Additionally, he made goofball boners and mistakes when it came to sharing his thoughts after a contestant’s performance … proving no one is going to be “on” all the time. But … I’m willing to lend tons more weight to the knowledge of someone like a Jackson — or an Iovine — than I would to either a Lambert or an Aiken whose ulterior views as a performer could come into play. That being said, I dug Harry Connick, Jr.’s take on how he thought a particular aspirant should approach a performance, but he clearly made judgment calls based on his point of view based on his experiences. And let’s not forget: Harry submitted to verbal blows with Jackson where some of the contenders were concerned when he appeared last season. Even he wasn’t immune to his personal experiences, relying on what his stage history said would work (and what wouldn’t) based his individual perspective … as a performer.

Yeah … I’m being hyper-critical. I can do that as someone who loves music, as someone who has watched Idol inside and out for the majority of its history (in good times and not-so-good times) and as someone who is more than comfortable pushing his opinion around. (Not to mention someone who correctly predicted the pecking order of the past season’s final seven contestants. *pow*)

As we see the fruits of this new Idol strategy unfolds on the small screen, will it be yet another train wreck in a history of past flubs? Or will it be a stroke of genius in finding a winning recipe to staunch the bleeding of the aging show’s ratings and popularity?

Stay tuned: January will be here before you know it. The proof will be in the pudding.

[easyazon-image align=”none” asin=”B008RNYMT2″ locale=”us” height=”160″ src=”https://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51XTU%2B5XjTL._SL160_.jpg” width=”113″] [easyazon-image align=”none” asin=”B0028SW5JG” locale=”us” height=”160″ src=”https://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/518hrDcTU3L._SL160_.jpg” width=”128″] [easyazon-image align=”none” asin=”B008C0C1Y8″ locale=”us” height=”160″ src=”https://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51DBItJ8OiL._SL160_.jpg” width=”120″]