Is the American Idol Experience "fixed"?

[Ian]

We may be getting semantical here. I don't think Amy meant "rigged' in the sense of the outcome being pre-determined.

I think Amy more meant that the show producers would use certain means at their disposal to influence the outcome. That's extraordinarily hard to prove, could be covered in some legalese in the contracts the performers sign, and relatively commonplace (heck, it happens on the real show all the time).

Thing is I've only seen the Disney AI show once so I really can't say if things like this happen frequently or if it was just a one time, accidental thing. I can tell you that, having seen the same show, it was very obvious.

[bicker]

We may be getting semantical here. I don't think Amy meant "rigged' in the sense of the outcome being pre-determined. I think Amy more meant that the show producers would use certain means at their disposal to influence the outcome.

Uh, I think you're actually playing semantics there... drawing the distinction between absolute predetermination of the winners vs. influencing the "outcome" (by which I assume you meant who would win). I don't think most folks who were pointing out that Disney is almost surely not rigging the contest would care about the distinction.

The distinction that I believe we should be making is between affecting the outcome of the voting, and affecting the quality of the entertainment. The show producers definitely have a responsibility to the show, and should absolutely take steps to ensure that the audience has an enjoyable time. Indeed, we can see them doing this by auditioning contestants before they ever get on stage. Contestants have to be, first, at least "good enough," and beyond that, better than others, when there are enough folks who are "good enough". The show producers also probably think about who should compete against whom, when timing and talent gives them the opportunity to do that. These things all have positive impact on the quality of the entertainment value of the show delivered to guests.

What we are objecting to is that accusation that the show producers go beyond that and try to make it so that the audience votes one way or another. That's a strong-enough accusation of wrong-doing that it has to be supported by more than just supposition and impression, to avoid being discredited. If it was just a matter of someone's personal opinion of something being good or bad, that would be another matter, but the insinuation was with regard to someone doing something wrong -- saying that it is a fair competition and them making it unfair. Again, saying stuff like that in public goes over a line, where more than just feelings are essential.

[Ian]

Absolutely I agree ... that's why I went to great lengths to point out that I've only ever seen the show once and that it was impossible for me to determine whether this was a one time fluke or if it happens frequently.

I will say, though, that I'm not sure the "allegation" is all that serious. I mean it's just a theme park attraction. It's not life or death.

[MOJoe]

We may be getting semantical here. I don't think Amy meant "rigged' in the sense of the outcome being pre-determined.

I think Amy more meant that the show producers would use certain means at their disposal to influence the outcome.

Thing is I've only seen the Disney AI show once so I really can't say if things like this happen frequently or if it was just a one time, accidental thing. I can tell you that, having seen the same show, it was very obvious.

Let's talk about real world examples. Say you have 100 people audition for the show. 16 are chosen to perform. Of those 16, 5 are really outstanding singers/performers. For the sake of the show, the producers will not have the 5 compete against each other, but instead compete against the 2nd tier singers. Is this fair? And will the performance seem "rigged"? In absolute fairness, shouldn't the talent level be equal?

The show itself is more important than any one performance or singer. So while the argument of impropriety can be made, (by having certain singers compete against certain others, the voting will be influenced) this is in the realm of what i believe is meant by the producers using certain means to provide the most entertainment.

Rigged? Not really. Influnced so that you will most likely vote a certain way. Highly likely.

[Mousefever]

Uh, I think you're actually playing semantics there... drawing the distinction between absolute predetermination of the winners vs. influencing the "outcome" (by which I assume you meant who would win). I don't think most folks who were pointing out that Disney is almost surely not rigging the contest would care about the distinction.

The distinction that I believe we should be making is between affecting the outcome of the voting, and affecting the quality of the entertainment. The show producers definitely have a responsibility to the show, and should absolutely take steps to ensure that the audience has an enjoyable time. Indeed, we can see them doing this by auditioning contestants before they ever get on stage. Contestants have to be, first, at least "good enough," and beyond that, better than others, when there are enough folks who are "good enough". The show producers also probably think about who should compete against whom, when timing and talent gives them the opportunity to do that. These things all have positive impact on the quality of the entertainment value of the show delivered to guests.

What we are objecting to is that accusation that the show producers go beyond that and try to make it so that the audience votes one way or another. That's a strong-enough accusation of wrong-doing that it has to be supported by more than just supposition and impression, to avoid being discredited. If it was just a matter of someone's personal opinion of something being good or bad, that would be another matter, but the insinuation was with regard to someone doing something wrong -- saying that it is a fair competition and them making it unfair. Again, saying stuff like that in public goes over a line, where more than just feelings are essential.

I'm having a case of the giggles here because my question has taken on such serious tone.

Ian, I thank you for letting me know that I wasn't imagining things. I was truly annoyed at the end of the AI Experience, because I couldn't figure out why the second contestant had so much vocal support and the two others had zero vocal support. I came away with the feeling that it wasn't a level playing field.

That being said, I'm certainly not ready to initiate legal action! Lol If my initial post was provocative, it was only to generate supposition as to why this seeming anomaly occurred.

And while we are bickering, Bicker, and since you seem to think that there was no overt or covert influencing taking place, please let me know your theory as to why one contestant would receive back-up vocal support while the other contestants did not. That's what I really want to know. Why would this legitimately take place?

Amy

[Ian]

Let's talk about real world examples. Say you have 100 people audition for the show. 16 are chosen to perform. Of those 16, 5 are really outstanding singers/performers. For the sake of the show, the producers will not have the 5 compete against each other, but instead compete against the 2nd tier singers. Is this fair? And will the performance seem "rigged"? In absolute fairness, shouldn't the talent level be equal?

The show itself is more important than any one performance or singer. So while the argument of impropriety can be made, (by having certain singers compete against certain others, the voting will be influenced) this is in the realm of what i believe is meant by the producers using certain means to provide the most entertainment.

Rigged? Not really. Influnced so that you will most likely vote a certain way. Highly likely.

This is precisely the way I feel about it, too.

[Patricia]

I say we all go back and watch another show!!

[Mousefever]

I say we all go back and watch another show!!

Yes! Intercot descends on the American Idol Experience!

Amy

[bicker]

Any: Given what I wrote earlier, it would be ridiculous to actually engage in the same kind of baseless speculation that I criticized before.

[Mousefever]

Yes, intellectual curiosity is taxing. It's not for people who refuse to think outside the box, or the official rules. I was just honestly curious about the way the contest went that day and was hoping that someone might have ideas as to why it did. I'm done asking, but feel free to have the last word.

Amy (or Any, if that's what you prefer)

[NJDad]

It's possible that one singer's backup singers were louder for a couple of non-conspiratorial reasons:

1) Just the nature of the recorded backing track-some songs need backing vocals to sound like their hit versions

2) Bad mix job by the audio guy

Considering the glitch we saw in the 'fans outside cheering for contestant 3' bit, technical difficulties do occur.

[bicker]

Yes, intellectual curiosity is taxing. It's not for people who refuse to think outside the box, or the official rules.

That's not the issue. The only answers that came to mind were ones that I would consider irresponsible to post. Living in accordance with ethical standards is not "refusing to think outside the box". I think your implication in that regard is unnecessarily inflammatory.

Amy (or Any, if that's what you prefer)

Sorry about the typo.

[Joannelet]

Is a moderator going to step in here because someone is completely off base by this post!!!!!!!!!

[Darbylew]

We have been to the show twice and we did
enjoy it. I don't think it is a fixed show at least
I hope not. Both times we were there the one I
voted on won. But who knows. Anyway I will go
back to see it when I am there.
BEEN THERE, DONE THAT AND GOING BACK IN
MAY!!!!!!

[Mousefever]

It's possible that one singer's backup singers were louder for a couple of non-conspiratorial reasons:

1) Just the nature of the recorded backing track-some songs need backing vocals to sound like their hit versions

2) Bad mix job by the audio guy

Considering the glitch we saw in the 'fans outside cheering for contestant 3' bit, technical difficulties do occur.

I was also wondering if maybe the contestants have a choice to have the back up or not, or at least a choice about the volume of the back up vocals. Your idea about the nature of the song coming into play also sounds plausible. But if the audio guy created such a huge disparity, I doubt he'll have a job for much longer!

Thanks for the ideas.

I'm not usually any kind of conspiracy nut. (Although I do speculate that there could have been a second shooter on the grassy knoll!)

Amy

[MNNHFLTX]

Moderator Warning--

The debate on this was getting a little too heated yesterday. Let's keep the discussion friendly, please.

[Joannelet]

[QUOTE=NJDad;2013261]It's possible that one singer's backup singers were louder for a couple of non-conspiratorial reasons:

1) Just the nature of the recorded backing track-some songs need backing vocals to sound like their hit versions

QUOTE]


This is a very interesting theory. I have a karoake machine and there are some songs that have backing vocals that are sometimes just as loud as the main vocal should be. I too noticed this when I was at the show and was thinking that they were using karoake style music because in some songs the background vocals were very noticeable and in others it wasn't-just like my machine.
So I totally think it depends on the song that is chosen. But I believe Disney is using (or it seems to be) the same cd's of music as used on a karoake machine.
(plus they have the words for them at the back of the audience just like a karoake machine would do).

[tinkerbelle75]

We saw the show when we were there a couple of weeks ago. I too thought it was a little strange that there was a very polished performer, one who was just ok, and one who shouldn't have ever made it past the street auditions. It seemed very clear that the girl who won was supposed to win because she was the ONLY choice to win. There HAD to be better auditions than the last girl that performed, and I think they just put them in later shows. I think maybe they do this to have a finale every day that has 3 better-than -average people. The girl who won the show we saw was almost certainly a "pageant girl" and was comfortable, but stiff and trained. The other two had a great time but, as Simon would say, it was "bad karaoke." I don't think it's rigged, but I do think it's heavily influenced.Will I go back? Yep.

[lettripp]

I have to say that I'm a little bothered by this thread, but probably because it is making me think.

I was lucky enough to be selected to perform in the attraction, and even luckier to have WON the daytime performance. I made it to the night show with 9 fantastic performers (did not win, but enjoyed the experience!!), but something about the final group led me to believe it was not fixed: I was one of 2 girls in the group. I feel like, if Disney were really trying to "fix" the competition, they would have tried to influence the vote so the evening show was slightly more diverse.

I will say that in both cases, every contestant was treated exactly the same ... with the exception of the two during the night performance who had to be coached on how to follow the camera as it went around them on stage. Coincidentally (or maybe not), one of these two contestants won the golden ticket.

I have no hard feelings, fixed or not. It truly was one of the most amazing days of my life!!!

[websitekid]

So I'm going to WDW over spring break for an honors communications class; we're studying Disney communication styles and practices. Anyway.. long story short... my teacher is a big proponent of Disney songs and offered to shorten our final project paper by 3 pages if we make it on stage for the finals (awesome, I know right..). Any suggestions to help me with this endeavor?