The results are in, and America has spoken. Each week's loser, with the fewest votes, is set to go home. It doesn't matter how great a singer the person really is; the number of votes is the statistic that matters.
It can of course happen that someone who deserves better gets sent home although there are inferior singers around. While Idol is a talent competition, it is, to be pragmatic, more a popularity contest. The ability of the judges could save someone would correct a potential injustice in the event that some freak vote would eliminate a good singer. The candidate for elimination gets a final song, as has always been customary, and the judges decide if the person should be saved (but in practice it's unlikely that this final song would have any effect, compared to the context of the person's history on the show).
What are the judges capable of? They have the power to decide who survive the auditions and Hollywood, and then eventually make it through to the semi-finals. At this point, they get to choose wildcards, to allow decent singers to get through to the final, just in case the public overlooked them. And they could even permit a top 13 rather than top 12 if they felt it appropriate.
Traditionally, that would be the end of their real powers. They get to comment after each contestant's performance, but that is really all. Their ability to appraise the performances could possibly persuade those in doubt if someone's performance was good or poor, but ultimately it's the country's idol, not the choice of the judges. Now with the save, they can tell the country that they got it wrong. The unlucky singer gets a "deserved" reprieve and stays in the competition. But the judges are only allowed to use this power once. They are thus highly unlikely to be too generous too soon. The fact that the decision has to be unanimous may or may not matter too much in practice, though. Would one person dare to veto the decision to prevent the save?
What impact does this have for the viewers? On the evidence of the latest season, the effect can be highly dramatic. Casey, shockingly receiving the fewest votes, was singing for his salvation, but got unexpectedly cut off. He did not even need to finish the song as the judges had already decided he was safe. The excitement of being saved was so phenomenal and overwhelming for Casey, who seemed to be in shock, and he would actually have felt far calmer if he had been eliminated. As a result, all eleven made it to the Idol tour, and two people were due to be eliminated the next week. I am not sure I'd have liked to be one of the other contestants, though, and seeing that save used on someone else, thus guaranteeing I would never get it.
What effect on the contestant's fans will this have? As we all must surely know, lots of people have more money than sense and pay fortunes to vote for their favourites. I would think each state tends to support it's own "representative", regardless of quality. But there are those who would prefer to save money and depend on other people to keep their favourites going. Now that they realise this frugal approach was almost punished, perhaps they might donate funds to the cause - and the favourite might get a far better voting result the next time.
As we have seen, the judges' save can liven up the show. It gives the judges that last opportunity to tangibly influence the competition, in the form of the minor possibility that the last person need not necessarily be going home just yet. If this person is a good singer who deserves to continue, why not? It would improve the average quality of the singing. And how do the judges decide? In practice, I think they would have an idea of who to save and who not to, meaning that desperate last performance to save the day may be of no consequence.
God, Phil... you're waisted on here!!!.... You're definitely one of the best writers on this site!!!! I LOVE your blogs.... so insightful and informative!!! Good Work girl ...as usual!!! Thanks for the read!!! <3333
