Judging the Judges - Idol and Talent

Back from a few weeks of rest after my chemotherapy ended in July and some on the cheap visist to friends and family thanks to my 2002 Mazda.

The biggest pop culture buzz while I was away has been the departure of American Idol judge, Paula Abdul after eight seasons. Conspiracy theories about the departure are as tart as Simon Crowell's tongue - allegations that Abdul was fired but allowed to gracefully exit, demands for the actress to be paid an equal amount as Crowell and show host Ryan Seacrest. Whatever the reason, Paula's departure was a tremendous move, one that should have been contemplated and consummated from the start.

Don't get me wrong I love Paula - she is unpredictable in her words, she builds every female's ego by flourishing comments on hair and makeup, and she is the matronly "rock" for the top contestants. Paula is equally underwhelming in the musical value of her comments, the over use of catch phrases, and, along with cohorts Cowell and Jackson, often vague critique and predictable chatter.

Much has been written in the blogosphere about the drop in Idol's popularity and ratings the last three year. Since the talent is new each season, the only constant for the show has been the judges. Maybe the ratings decline is due to their stale comments and the boredom they convey. Thank goodness for TIVO and the ability to fast forward through Simon and the gang or I may have completely given up on Idol.

Hindsight is 20/20 but the producers should have rotated the judged from the start. In that way, the commentary would have been as fresh as the talent each year. Replacing Paula (or any judge) now after eight years will again put the focus on the panel and not where it should be - on the contestants.

Speaking of judges and Simon Cowell, America's Got Talent is back for a fifth summer on NBC and capturing big ratings. The show, created by Cowell, has never really grabbed my attention because I have never really figured out what they are competing to be the "best" of in America.

When it premiered the show was touted as America's talent show, aiming to find the country's most unique act. That quickly evolved into the best undiscovered star in the land. And this year it evolved again into the search for the next Las Vegas superstar.

My problem with Talent is there is no point of reference between the acts by which the judging is fair. How do you compare singers versus a dance troupe; magicians against flame-swallowers? Some acts are judged on shear talent (singers, dancers) but others based on their unique nature or odd but entertaining premise.

This isn't just an issue for the judging, but it comes into play with what happens to the winner. Sure they get a nifty cash prize, but then what happens? Do they get a record deal, a Vegas show contract or a slot on the Tonight Show? Does anyone know what happened to past winners of the show?

UPDATE (Sep 2) - Jerry Springer is coming back in the "America's Got Talent" fold – this time hosting a live version of the TV talent contest in Las Vegas.

Springer, who served as host of "America's Got Talent" for two seasons on NBC, will emcee the Las Vegas show at Planet Hollywood Resort & Casino starting in October. It will run for at least 10 weeks, a spokesman for the show said Tuesday.

Springer left the TV series to appear on stage in the musical "Chicago." His Broadway stint as flashy lawyer Billy Flynn wraps Sunday.

Last year, Springer was the host for a single presentation in Las Vegas of "America's Got Talent Live." The new run starts Oct. 7 and include shows Wednesday through Sunday.