The two long hours leading up to this moment - a moment that will be declared a "shock", by tomorrow, but wouldn't have shocked anyone who understands the business - were painful; but the problem of Matt Corby was blatantly clear. Sure, he would've been easily seduced by 25,000 people (on that most beautiful of harbours), part of a most extravagant production, screaming their love. It didn't matter, by that stage, anyway - it was all over, red rover, for the young boy who realised that (gosh) all is not what it seems in the Idol (yes, James and Andrew, here's that word, again...) Journey™. His eyes sparkled, briefly, on those steps; but a few minutes, later, there he was on that opera house stage, warily thumbling his way through that god awful 70's variety show choreography, to such beautiful moments in musical history as, "She's giving me good vibrations... na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na." Matt just couldn't connect; it seems not in his nature.

It is in this "nature" of Corby's, where we find the interesting question that leaves Australian Idol 2007 (for all of us that bothered to endure it) as being worth having watched, when it comes to following the progression of reality television and its intertwining with modern popular culture. I think there's something in the evolving story of Matt Corby - something that I missed, at first - that highlights the generational shifts I have said, all along, are not only to be found in the story of reality television, but are ultimately to be the problems of the genre (quite ironic and, perhaps, one could say karmic). I first was largely cynical about Matt Corby. It's not like this is the first time we've seen a successful contestant get a reality check on the un-reality of reality television. Generally speaking, they are hammered into place, or come to that cross-road where the integrity that is challenged by such a realisation must ask itself whether it is worth losing the chance for fame (what their journey is so largely about, of course). Most choose the fame. Matt Corby, ultimately, has not. In so many respects, he is a frontrunner, in this way. For all those who leave reality television, ready to tell the world about how corrupt the process actually is - though, I'd like to say that this is still a good thing, and they are certainly commended over the oblivious who truly believe (and we've seen plenty of them, too) - do seem to embody this, once that journey is over, or, in other words, when that chance for fame (and whatever degree of fame they have been left with) is lost. It's easy to embody it, once you lose. It's much harder, when you stand on the verge of ultimate victory, that fame standing before you on a platter. Corby's fame was on that platter, and he effectively said no to it. The question is, "why"? But the even greater question is, "how"? What makes Matt Corby so different? So capable?

I found him impressive, for all these reasons; but the guiding facet of my surprise was the age of this Idol hopeful. This is a teenager - merely 16, when his journey began (now, 17). When we came to that very first crossroad, the moment where his realisation led to that bite (a bite we've seen, many times before, in both Idol and - more so - in the reality beast of all beasts, Big Brother), I expected him to submit to what follows any resistance by a contestant (as said before, Idol's response tends to be more behind-the-scenes; whereas, Big Brother takes a more public approach - usually, at the hands of Killeen's infamous bullying and defaming). He was 16, after all; he was surely too naive and susceptible - perhaps, even easily intimidated - to sustain that resistance. It's not that they're just bullied (though, many are) through having that carrot dangled in front of them; the first attempt by reality TV productions is always to try to reconstruct the reality of the contestant, manipulating the publicity dangers away. Big Brother is more successful at this, because the contestants, through the nature of the Big Brother format, are so utterly naive and at the hands of the show's reality. A Big Brother housemate lives only in the sub-reality of the production, they are never on the other side; this is why we see the disillusionment, only long after the housemate is out of the show (which works out nicely for the show, and is also why Killeen used those eviction stages to make one final stamp on the housemates' reality, while the cameras were on them). Big Brother housemates are easy fodder. But Idol wannabes are more difficult, because their journey in the pseudo-reality of the show is intertwined with - constantly interfered by - actual reality, alongside (it must be conceded), a counter-publicity reality (where the messages may often be "true", through default, but are still delivered with veiled, commercially-driven agendas, by competing businesses). They can't be kept under constant lock and key, and the co-dependency of the show with the publicity of the press and media, leads each contestant into potentially dangerous waters. It's a battle; and this is why we have heard so many stories of the more honest threatening of the contestants (even if it is posed, when public, as "advice"). Sure, they hope the contestants "see the light" (and simply give in to the same manipulation tactics of Big Brother); but if they don't... well, they don't. Inevitably, the message, in these situations, will get... "clearer".

Make no mistake, Matt Corby would have eventually had that message put to him. Clearly. He did not continue to speak his mind to the press (although, there's no doubt they were deliberately eliciting it, to get their story), oblivious to what it was doing to his chances. Corby has let it be known how much he "learned", throughout the show, about the reality of the production. He may have been nothing but (another) bewildered contestant who reacted quite honestly, without realising what happens to those who speak out, at first; but, by last weekend,  I find it very difficult to believe that Corby could have still honestly wanted that crown, and thought he could still attain it, by continuing the kind of quotes he was handing out to any journalist who would listen. As expected, decisions were made, and out came Holden to announce to the public that the team who had marketed that boy from the very beginning, now wanted their star to be seen as a "spoilt little brat", and, even more amazingly, admitted that he was deliberately marketed ("favored" was the word used) for the sake of being the obvious male money-spinner (which, ironically - and quite unfairly - Corby would bare the brunt of, from a gullible public who don't like being marketed to). Natalie Gauci had, in that moment, been handed that crown. End of story. It's not a conspiracy theory - it's just business.

And it's remarkable. That a seventeen year old boy who had dreamed, his whole life, of a record contract and tour, in any way "chose" not to snatch it when it was in front of him, is remarkable. Granted, Corby isn't entirely savvy to it. It was interesting to see him unsure as to the exact origins of Holden's most recent attack (because they'd decided it was the end of the line for your dangerous, negative PR, young Mr Corby); but still, even before this, he would have known to keep his mouth closed, if he truly wanted to win - yet, didn't. I don't care how awful that single is, most would shut up and ride it to the top of the charts (we'll see how much the week's press has hurt the single, but you can probably rest assured it will still make that wad of cash for Sony). But does his age make it all the more remarkable? Or does it provide a generational explanation? "Keep being true to your generation," was Mark's - hypocritical - advice to Matt, last night (all very well, once Holden had done as his job required, and sealed the fate of the boy). He may very well have had a point.

What Mark may have tripped up on, was the reference being to Gen Y. Where these labels begin and end is a subjective, blurred line. I'm on the tail end of Gen X (you'd never tell, would you?!), in that transitional period where one can have traits of both X or Y. Gen Y (an old term, now) are now in their 20's and (perhaps) in their early 30's. Any cultural labeling will be, by its nature, a couple of steps behind the actual thing it labels. It's easy to throw "Gen Y" at Corby, but the boy has only just turned 17. He's not Y - he's... well... Z, I suppose. "We" (Gen X) were the disillusioned. Gen Y, a furthering of that disillusionment, began to ask, as the clever pun suggests (and as Holden suggested, last night), "Why?" - they're not so much disillusioned by the world imposed upon them, as they are at adaptive odds with the world of the older generations (a world they see as powerless, when Gen X, quite differently, battled against the restraints of its power). They simply live in their own world - we lived in the word of the generations above us, and grappled with it as a kind of prison (why so many of X failed, ultimately - it wasn't our world to deny). But what about the younger people, now coming up behind those who were originally declared Y? Corby is one of them. I don't really think he was asking, "Why?" so much; he was simply saying "no" to that world.

Where does modern reality television (epitomised by Network Ten) and modern pop music (epitomised by Sony BMG) fit in with the cultural divide between the generation in suits who control those commercial worlds, and the young talent they exploit? There's going to be problems for both businesses, if Corby is indicative of a trend in his generation. It's easy enough for us to sit here, and think, "Wow - he effectively turned that down and stuck to his guns, and he was only 16!" - but we're projecting our own generational attitudes (and, perhaps, misgivings) upon him, in doing so. I'm not suggesting that this generation understand the reality of these businesses (as commercially driven propaganda) - even Corby admits that he didn't (no different to characters from older generations we have seen on these shows, such as Chanel Cole, etc). I predict that if the backlash against these businesses continues, there's a chance we may have a generation on its way, who do; but, for now, that is still largely not the case, and teenagers still believe the false commercial worlds as they are (falsely!) presented to them. No, rather, I think Corby may very well be the first time we have seen a reaction that could (one would hope) be increasingly prevalent amongst the young people who will ultimately reach for Dreams, in commercial words like television and music. Yes, it's a farce. Yes, they want success. But no, thankyou, the Machine™ can get fucked. Corby has been successfully lied to - enough for him to sign up to that competition (how tiring were the forum boards of nasty pop culture consumers barking, "Then why did he sign up for it, in the first place?") - but when that lie was revealed as just that, he all but demanded for himself the kind of success he (naively) thought he would find in that show. He wants the real thing. Those before him have often - mostly - settled for the illusion. Hey, it makes them famous, after all. But not Matt Corby; and, perhaps, not for so many from his generation.

Ultimately, it's hard to say, either way. Perhaps, Corby is a one-off - a boy with a kind of inherent creative priority that has held out, when others (maybe, still, others from his generation) would simply go for the quick fame, while it was there. The trend away from the propaganda is there - four years ago, a site like mine would never have worked. But, still, whether that trend has now begun to change, even further, as the younger teens who have grown up with reality television (unlike us, we should remember) bring their attitudes to it, remains to be seen, for we do not yet have a pattern. Things will get harder, because of the revealing of the propaganda to the public who - slowly - catch on (sites like Behind Idol, etc, show this). But maybe - just maybe - things will get even more difficult if (irrespective of whether we have a generation who "gets it", or not) we have a generation who say "no" to the illusion when they realise, as so many have, that it's just that. Fingers crossed.

Natalie Gauci, it must be said, knows it's an illusion. She has chosen it, anyway. But, Gauci is 27 - she's thoroughly Y, and fits in, then, with my suggestion. What was bizarre, last night (and throughout the press) was to see Corby's strength, in comparison to hers. The most blatant moment of this, came at the end, when Corby took it upon himself to make a claim on Gauci's own musical credibility and aspirations, butting in, to tell Australia that Gauci, too, had songs of her own, and was "amazing" in her own right. It seemed not to move Gauci - by this time, she was the stunned bunny, and the concerns of Corby were, no doubt, the furthest thing from her mind. But shouldn't it have been Gauci, the "seasoned" 27 year old aspiring performer, who was the "big sis" to Corby? Why was the 17 year old providing the "reality" for the 27 year old? 

Whatever the case, Gauci won - or, depending on how you look at it, lost. And I don't mean to be cruel - for all it's worth, I feel sorry for Gauci, in some way; but it is what it is, and, regardless, she'll find the fame so affirming - for a little while, at least - I doubt she needs too much sympathy. Still, she's not the story of triumph we may choose to see her as. She has crawled around the gutters of her musical aspirations, as a wedding singer, for years. I'm sure she has done so, like any wedding singer, because she couldn't crack it on her own, with her own music; that's what a wedding singer usually aspires to (certainly, Gauci). But, instead of breaking free from this world, thanks to Idol, she has been solidified as this - as that wedding singer. The finale had no qualms in casting her, thus. The fame she woke with, this morning (and the career), is simply the epitome of such a performance. She will release an album of bad, mainstream covers, and she will travel the country, like a monkey, performing them for bogans. It's a bigger stage, and it's a bigger audience (without a wedding dress to be seen); but the only real difference is the scale. For years, she sang other people's songs she'd rather not; she has performed them, whilst perfecting the ability to keep that cheesy grin, and, for all intents and purposes, fool everyone in her audience that this is what she really wants to do. Now, she has put that skill to great effect, in Australian Idol. She stood out, from the others, last night (as usual), as she gave that ridiculous choreography her "all", belting out those tunes (like some kind of Dino compilation), as if she meant every word. Natalie Gauci has a solid enough voice, and likes to write her own music (don't they all?); but for now, she is the wedding singer extraordinaire. She's 2007's "Idol". But she's certainly not an autonomous music artist.

Whether Corby will attain what he has, instead, opted for, remains to be seen. In the end, you have to question that, to some extent, because of the path that he (however naively) chose. Corby is going to be on the line up, alongside Gauci, for the forthcoming Idol tour, and you'd expect Sony to hand him a contract, if they haven't already (it will have more freedom than Gauci's current deal, but will still be, at the end of the day, a Sony BMG contract). Surely, Corby would be smart enough to accept one from a competing label, such as EMI, but one wonders if EMI would bother. In the end, whilst Corby's journey on the show has been fascinating, it is that journey that forever defines them, and it is the name of the reality contest game, that the irony of that grab at fifteen minutes ends up being just that - their fifteen minutes. It's hard to come through Idol and expect to build the kind of career Matt Corby wants to. It's never been done, quite frankly. But, Corby has provided us with a few firsts, already. Who knows? Perhaps, there's another one coming, yet. I hope, for his sake, there is.