Forget kids vs. adults, or singers vs. dancers (or jugglers, etc....). What about the fact that some of these people have been doing their thing professionally for years? Anyone who "plays Vegas "or is "on tour" shouldn't be competing on the same show as people who obviously have no stage experience. (Although some of the "professionals" have a lot less talent than some of the "amateurs".) In my opinion, if you've been in the business for years and haven't been "discovered" yet, there's a reason why. Go back to Vegas and let some real undiscovered talent be showcased.

Although I'm not aware of any restriction on Pro vs. Amature, there should have been. It never entered my mind that there were professionals competing until I visited the website and saw this one was performing here and that one was part of a professional group, etc. The one that bothered me most was Corinne - made a special point of how she had played for her sister in the hospital and they asked her to come again and here she is auditioning for the show - how modest. The women has CD's out for heaven's sake.

You're right about some "professionals" having less talent than the boy/girl next door.

I read on one thread that there are contract details that effectively prevent the performers who already have a commitment from appearing on the show (there by eliminating Brittany who I'm sure would have been there - lack of talent not withstanding) But apparently those who are not "signed" or don't have an iron clad contract can give it a shot.

OK fine, OK good. It's the equivilent of a casting call for stardom. Just not what I expected for a talent show. Of course, I thought Survivor was going to be about actually surviving in the wild (OMG what do you mean we can't have hair dryers?) not a popularity contest where the sneakiest back stabber wins. What is in the package bears no resemblence to the label in either case.

There is quite a difference between being a professional and being discovered. Many of these performers don't make much more money than you or I make at our regular jobs. It's the equivalent of playing minor league baseball compared to playing major league baseball.

In regards to having CDs, anyone can put out a CD. If you can afford to rent a recording studio for a day you can put out a CD. The catch is having the cash, talent and representation to get it into stores.

,Matt

I think there should be some distinction made. If an act has played large venues, appeared on national TV before, etc. they should be competing with other acts who have done the same.

Even duckman? Mercy me!

I've got news for you. You don't even need to rent a studio. All you need is a computer and about a hundred bucks for mediocre recording software. After you record you just need to get it mastered and send it to the CD duplicator. You can get about 1,000 Cds produced for almost peanuts, and then all you need is a few good breaks and you'll be a "published musician"...

If you doubt this, just listen to any new hip-hop or rap CD. They obviously haven't spent very much on "production" or "sound quality". That's not a "bust" and it shouldn't be interpreted as that, because "rap" isn't about the sound quality, (other than a lot of overdriven bass) It's about the beats and the lyrics.

My son records everything he has written on his computer. He records the guitar and bass parts live and then adds the other instruments one at a time. (using a single mic, a casio keyboard, and a $200.00 Alesis drum machine). It is recognizable as a home made recording, but the average listener wouldn't know the difference. I can tell only because I've been a musician for almost 40 years and I've heard an awful lot of good and bad recordings in that time period. He has a lot of talent and he's self taught. I'm sure my opinion is biased because I'm his dad, but I haven't heard very much on AGT that he wouldn't give a good run for the money.

Recording technology has gotten so cheap and easy that it's easy to see why the whole music industry is sort of at an impass. I know the the studios in Nashville are offering all sorts of competitions and other means to drum up business. They are not very busy, and I believe it's because just about anyone can do it in their basement almost as well as in a studio nowadays.

My son, "supposedly" won a songwriter's contest out of Nashville, only to get a proposal in the mail, for him to come and record at they're studio and with they're professional musicians, at his expense. This wasn't the kicker... They would provide a seven piece backup band made up of professional musicians and the studio, including proffessionally written backup instrumentation, all for only $550.00. (for one song) That tells me, things are real "slow" in Nashville, and they are giving away the store, just to drum up some work. Am I wrong in this conclusion? I don't think so. I actually e-mailed a musician friend of mine in Nashville, just to get the real scoop, and make sure it's not a scam, and he said things are real slow right now in Nashville, so it's probably a legitimate offer.

So "America's Got Talent" enough to pull it off without going broke in the process. The recording industry is really being challenged by the changes in affordable technology, and they are scrambling to survive. I guess if you followed this to the end, you might be able to rationalize the need for a show like AGT. They very well may be trying to attract some new, up and coming artists, out of they're basements and get them to sign on the dotted line. (Please don't get me wrong about that. I'm only "speculating", but it sure does make a lot of sense if you think about it.)

Given the fact another AGT has been announced for the fall let's hope the producers etc. have read and noted the sentiments of the American public through these messages. There are many communicating valid concerns about the show...from camera coverage, to commercials, to basis of talent to be presented.
I am among those who have been disappointed with the mix of non-professional vs. professional talent.
We're all aware that the semi-professionals who have not accomplished 'fame' in their field have seen the opportunity as exposure and free advertising. Not that there is anything really wrong with that, but there, most definitely, should be a separation of the two.
The viewing audience is also cognizant of commercial $$$ the show has reaped. Given that, it makes sense to have a two-category show (alternating acts) for the second edition and offer the same $1M prize to the winner in each category; that way everyone can appreciate and be entertained by each performance for what it is and the show would be better balanced...giving recognition to those trying to make a start and exposure to those already steps ahead in their profession.
The biggest plus?!...the boards wouldn't be filled with such antagonism as it has been this go-around.