I believe she proved she has what it takes to make it in the music business. She has heart, talent, and she doesn't care much and I stress much about the publicity. I mean she wants it, heck I would too. I am just talking about the classy thing she did on 9/11. It was rumored to be just a publicity stunt singing the star Spangled Banner, but she did not want to be noticed as the winner and champion of American Idol. She just wanted to sing the national anthem, and be as proud as she can be of our Country. She also has a wonderful voice. If she doesn't come across a lot of obstacles that might just get in her way, I really think she will go far. I know she doesn't write her own songs yet, but it is still early. I know the songs she sings are someone else's, but she makes it sound like it was written for her.

If the radio stations have thier way she won't be a superstar. They have been reluctant to give her airplay.  This may be offset next week when the sales figures come in.  Right now "A moment like this" is at #60, God I hate radio stations.

she's no different than any other britney spears wannabe type singer.


define superstar...

Now, she doesn't play her own instrument & write her own songs (yet) like "The Morissette Minors"...but I still think she has what it takes. I think many people are judging her too early...we'll just see what happens.

No, definately not YET. See, this what I hate about the music business nowadays: everything always has to be THE NEXT BIG THING. They music business blows up artists before the artist even proves themselves nowadays which is wrong. An artist has to prove longevity in order to be a superstar.

I hope she goes far.  She has an amazing voice.  As long as she doesn't get stuck in a music rut.  She could sing almost any type of song.  We will just have to wait and see.

She was Just a normal Girl from a southwestern town. She won first prize in a contest. Now she will be a slave, maybe for the rest of her life.

I'm pro-Kelly Clarkson, anti-American Idol and everything that goes with it.

I'm pro-Idol. Anti- everything it goes for. Why did the good looking boy/girl band types get through to the last ten? Gives me, and others no chance (or so we think). None of us look like a Pop Idol when we've just woken up, and I'm sure sometimes Gareth, Will, Justin or Kelly don't feel, nor look like superstars first thing in the morning.

If I may, I'd like to ask one question of you Americans who got into American Idol in any way. How were people gathered up for the auditions? I hardly heard of this programme before it came on air in England, and then it was too late to tell the many friends that I have with good singing voices to get down early enough for the audition. Well, 'tis the way... What I'm saying is, a lot of people didn't know about this until after the auditions were held...

I'll admit that I didn't follow "American Idol", but this is far from the first time that this type of thing has been done here in the U.S. Am I the only one who remembers back to the mid '80s, when MTV had a similar monthly competition called "Basement Tapes", where unsigned bands submitted independently-produced videos of themselves? Five finalists were chosen by MTV each month, and then viewers were able to call in and vote for their favorite. The monthly winners were then pitted against each other in a year-end showdown, and the grand prize was a contract w/ the EMI America label (a major), for a 4-song EP and a professional video clip. A hard-rock band from Seattle, Rail, won the first at the end of '83, and their self-titled EP was out by the Summer of '84 (and it even made the album chart, peaking at #143) - I have it on cassette myself... :-)

And need I mention "Star Search"?

Superstar? No. Fabulous singer? Heck yeah.

There is nothing "special" about Kelly. She has cornflake looks and lacks cutting egde attitude.  Yep, she sure can sing but talent alone will get her no where in today's industry.

I think in order for her to go far she's gonna have to play her cards extremely well. I don't think she'll be able to afford even one bad decision.

I don't think she's cut out to be a pop singer or even top 40. I have no professional background for my opinion but I think if Kelly is gonna fly it's gonna be with the country circuit.

I also believe Britney Spears would qualify under that same category...  ;D

Okay, let me try asking a question:  What makes you classify someone as a "performer" rather than an "artist"?  Is it just not writing your own material?  It can't be that, you listed Eminem and Marilyn Manson, both of whom maintain complete control of their work.  Besides, that would make Jewel an artist and Aretha Franklin a mere "performer."  Is it that they're popular?  No, you're a Madonna fan.  Is it just that you don't care for them?  I certainly hope not, that's a terrible way of looking at things.  It's probably that "lowest common denominator" bit, right?  You feel that these acts pander to a mass audience with the sole purpose of making money, and this means that what they do isn't "art," and thus the acts themselves not "artists."

If that's the case, there's a problem with that argument:  Namely, that you can't make art and pander at the same time, and also that performing isn't an art.  Perhaps this is just my opinion, but that's completely false.  The Beatles' early material ranks in my mind as some of the finest songs ever written; they're also pure pop fluff, and John and Paul have admitted that they wrote them mainly for the screaming girls.  That doesn't make them any less quality than any other songs.  Think of all the great Motown groups who were basically slaves of the industry, who did what Berry Gordy told them to do, who didn't write a single note on any of their songs.  Think of Elvis.  Don't even try to tell me that these people weren't "artists."  Yes, they all were marketed to a mass audience.  So what?  Is pandering to the hipster elite like Radiohead and The Strokes do any better?  Is pandering to the hardcore punk scene like NOFX does any better?

And if you're only making the distinction between "artists" and "performers" is because of talent, well, that's subjective.  Eminem has barrels more talent when it comes to making good music than Radiohead, in my opinion, and I'd rather listen to "The Dope Show" than anything from Radiohead's last two albums; that doesn't mean Radiohead is talentless, that's just my opinion.  It just means that I don't like their "art," if you will.

I caught a bit of Kelly's performance this morning on the Today Show, and I must admit, she did a great job! :)

Mmm, McDonalds...