I see Ben has requested sciencebloggers to weigh in on another musical question. This time to see whether there is any consensus in choosing a house band for our consortium - you know, the sort that could maybe write a song for us, perform during Christmas parties and the like.
Which I think is going to be a formidable challenge - maybe not formidable like figuring out what to do about North Korea, etc - but man, do people ever get fiesty when it comes to musical preferences.
But I think I've got a good suggestion, not one that I'm proud of, and in truth, it's one that I am even a little loath to suggest, but one I'm pretty sure is a good fit, nevertheless.
...That's right people, I'm talking about suggesting the machine that is American Idol.
Don't get me wrong. I am actually a bit of an aristocrat when it comes to my musical preferences, but I guess I've always been the sort who is happy enough to reminisce concerts as diverse as Platinum Blonde to the Butthole Surfers and everything in between (my only real dislike nowadays is straight-up country-pop), but I see a good fit with the workings of American Idol. Besides, that Kelly Clarkson can really hold a note (and could "Since you've been gone" be any fricking catchier?).
I mean, think of what us sciencebloggers are as a whole - we're a group of individuals who take comfort (easy or uneasy) in writing about science. We have diverse backgrounds, diverse perspectives, and diverse priorities for why we're doing this. In our own careers, our efforts here are mostly regarded with amusement, and sometimes even embarrasment and disdain - i.e. there seems to be a certain character judgement that goes with the "academic who also blogs". We're not talking Ryan Seacrest disdain, but there is something there.
As well, some of us are good at it ("it" being this writing thing), some of us are maybe very good at it, but more importantly, one can argue that measuring this ability is a fluid affair and very very subjective (i.e that post was so bad it was good, etc).
However, you can also argue that there is a measure that is not fluid at all. Here, we're talking about numbers - that is, how many people are checking in - what exactly is the readership? I bet that even though some here would say that they don't care about such things, we are all at least a little wary about them. This, in some way, is how we're judge, by "the vote" represented by our "hits" and by the comments left on our pages.
And, of course, I'm also sure there's many of us who are using it to see if it will lead to other things. This could be as small as getting some free stuff, to as large, as some serious exposure leading to something bigger or grander. Actually, I think all of us think of this blogging as a potential opportunity of some sort. So, we are very much a field of contestants, where maybe the one constant is that we all have an audience of some sort. Granted, contestants in that laidback science manner, but contestants still.
We even already have a bit of a machine behind us - that is the Seedmedia component, who can bring in the celebrity factor (Dalai Lama, Noam Chomsky? That's some serious stuff there).
Anyway, is it me, or is this similarity (by replacing "writing about science" to "singing in public") between ScienceBlogs and American Idol almost dead-on? Does this work as a houseband suggestion? Except maybe for the judges. We don't don't have those three judges. So who should the three judges be? I know - maybe Paul (at Pharyngula) can be Paula Abdul (same sunny disposition?) ...
- Log in to post comments