I was merely pointing out the judges on the X Factor are qualified to judge contestants and the contestants do get professional guidance, elements you said we're not present on the show, if there is a comparison to be made, then the two shows are very similar in that respect.
Both programmes are designed to provide light entertainment on a weekend, nothing more.
Except in the case of X Factor it is designed to make money for Cowell first, and for entertainment second. Even the entertainment parts makes them loads of money with the show sponsor paying millions.
You are also allowing your extreme pro BBC bias to distract you too.
Strictly is not educational at all, and X Factor is just a medium to make Cowell money.
I'm not a fan of either, but I prefer Strictly because it isn't a programme designed with the only purpose to create personal wealth for one man, it is just an entertainment show.
I agree with a lot of what you say normally, however, you have to admit that the feedback the judges provide the contestants with on Strictly is credable and constructive delivered by people qualified to pass those comments. The judges do teach the nation about dance. Can the same comparable comments be made about The X Factor in all honesty?
I enjoy the Voice, but without checking I couldn't name all the winners...
Me neither, but that doesn't stop it being a good programme. A lot of those who have featured have gone on to do things in "the industry" so they're all winners really
The BBC is more than strictly however, what about the comfy sofa chat chit chat on Breakfast on Saturday mornings?
What about it?
Or most of Radio 1's or 2s or 5s output?
Don't know about 5 but 1 and 2 are distinctly different from any supposed commercial "equivalent". If you don't believe me go to comparemyradio.com and see for yourself.
There is a difference between liking a show/finding a show boring and whether a show is educational or not. I love Strictly. It's very British, very BBC. I've learn't loads about dance having watched it for years. How? Through the comments given by the well qualified judges.
What does Simon Cowell teach us about music and singing? Does he advice the contestants on how they can improve? Does he talk about technique?
That is one of the other things that annoyed me with the BBC, trying to chase ratings. since they do not have to rely on advertising they should not have to chase ratings.
Oh dear. This again.
"Why are we paying for [popular stuff] that the commercial channels could produce?" (Could but don't obviously )
But then...
"Why are we forced [sic] to pay for stuff that no-one's watching".
Except in the case of X Factor it is designed to make money for Cowell first, and for entertainment second. Even the entertainment parts makes them loads of money with the show sponsor paying millions.
9 - 10m viewers don't think it's second rate entertainment.
Not jealous of another's success are we, because it sounds very much like it.
Cowell created the franchise and the programmes are produced by him and his production company, are they not allowed to make a return on the millions they must have invested.
He has also created hundreds if not thousands of jobs.
Good luck to the Cowell's of this country, I hope they further succeed and make millions more just to piss off those who disapprove.
Why shouldn't you learn something from a programme just because it's "light entertainment"?
Not saying you couldn't learn something from a light entertainment programme, just that SCD is not produced to educate, it's produced to entertain. It's a popularity contest and public phone in show, the judges tell the contestants how they might improve, they don't tell the viewer how to bloody dance.
SCD isn't a serious dancing competition. It's a sparkly, lovely, sequin-filled show, which exists to brighten up the dreary autumnal weekend evenings. Let's not get too worked up about it.:D
The people who want adverts on the BBC haven't really thought it through.
Even big, multi national companies have a finite amount they are willing to spend on advertising.
Now they might decide they would pay for an ad during a break in Strictly Come Dancing- but that would almost certainly mean an ad less they would pay for on ITV (I say ITV rather than one of the hundreds of satalite channels, because clearly an ad on terrestrial ITV1 would cost roughly the same as an ad on BBC1)
The main sufferers would be ITV if this ever happened.
Interesting choices. Neither would have existed without the licence fee and all would go without it of course.
And you know that how? Maybe you time travel to a future without a TV licence.
Chasing ratings?...I don't see any evidence of this. Surely if it was chasing ratings, the schedules would be clogged up with reality shows and soaps and not shows like The One Show, VE Celebrations, Panorama, The News, New Tricks, 24 Hours In The Past, Inspector George, Watchdog, Crimewatch, Shark, A Question Of Sport, Have I Got News For You and Mrs Brown's Boys.
Eastenders is always trying to beat the soaps on the other side, the voice is also a ratings chaser, that is why they have got, SCD is also a ratings chaser, so is pointless to a certain degree.
Europe is good. We gain hugely from being in it, but that's a whole other argument.
You always seem to see the good in everything even a corrupted organisation like the EU.
To determine whether a show is commercial or not you have to look at the content not the format or presentation. Is ballroom and latin dancing mainstream? Commercial if you like?
Depends on how well it does to be honest. some people will watch any old stuff, you only have to look at Big brother.
The people who want adverts on the BBC haven't really thought it through.
Even big, multi national companies have a finite amount they are willing to spend on advertising.
Now they might decide they would pay for an ad during a break in Strictly Come Dancing- but that would almost certainly mean an ad less they would pay for on ITV (I say ITV rather than one of the hundreds of satalite channels, because clearly an ad on terrestrial ITV1 would cost roughly the same as an ad on BBC1)
The main sufferers would be ITV if this ever happened.
Agree.
I have said this so many times...even here on this thread.
Simple economics that some do not understand.
The TV advertising budget by companies will NOT increase.
So " if" the BBC takes Ads and the vast majority here in the pool do not want that.
If they do that income is firstly taken from existing TV channels like ITV, but as well as that ITV are not going to lay back and not fight that, so there will be a battle.
As the laws of supply and demand go, the supply of Ad slots double the income cuts in half, so not only is commercial TV in competition with BBC for Ads their and all TV channels income falls, BBC to attract Ads undercuts ITV and ITV fights back and cuts causing a bit battle like supermarkets now and with income down they all have to take subscription and cut budgets.
You get wall to wall Jeremy Vile, ITV has been cutting its budgets since 2009. And you get more soaps more imports less Downton and there will be less spent on news.
Foreign investors, through economies of scale will take UK TV over as they have the shows abroad so can make money with less investment.
Then with News budgets cut we rely on the Murdoch, group to provide News and we know what they do to influence elections.
In fact I suspect Murdoch employees post here on DS and this thread as long term they benefit.
Finally it does just cost 40 p per house hold per day for the LF that gives universal access for people on low incomes and say pensioners to get good TV now access to sport Match of the Day, the Olyimpics so those who say get Ads on the BBC cut the LF are robbing the poor of good TV and making things like TV sport I reachable for poor incomes and the access to TV for the very rich only.
Think very carefully what you wish for, you get something else, and some here are over influencing arguments, and like newspapers like the Mail group who have commercial TV interests do not honestly declare their vested interests to influence the gullible .
The Strictly judges are all dancers...qualified to judge...inform the nation. I have learn't loads having watched Strictly. The X Factor judges are not musicians/singers so aren't in a position to pass judgements because they have no knowledge of such matters...but it doesn't matter because it isn't the purpose of the X Factor. The X Factor is just a cash cow for Cowell. The X Factor is not a patch on Strictly. They are completely different shows.
Some judges are singers on X-factor, how ever much you hate Cowell, he does know his stuff, he have been in the business for many years. So Cowell may make lots of money if the artist/s do any good, but he have had failures.
Can you tell me where the ones who won the voice are now, are they doing anything or just vanished? I do not know myself, because
(a) i do not watch the voice for obvious reasons
(b) I do not really keep up with modern music, preferring the older stuff myself and a bit of Jazz and classic.
I my opinion X-factor and the Voice are the same sort of thing.
You are also allowing your extreme pro BBC bias to distract you too.
Strictly is not educational at all, and X Factor is just a medium to make Cowell money.
I'm not a fan of either, but I prefer Strictly because it isn't a programme designed with the only purpose to create personal wealth for one man, it is just an entertainment show.
Strictly is educational, it's inspired many to pick up dancing and learn dances, it shows the effort you need to put in, and even the benefits of dance, esteem and loosing weight.
Except in the case of X Factor it is designed to make money for Cowell first, and for entertainment second. Even the entertainment parts makes them loads of money with the show sponsor paying millions.
Strictly is educational, it's inspired many to pick up dancing and learn dances, it shows the effort you need to put in, and even the benefits of dance, esteem and loosing weight.
You could also apply that reasoning to almost anything seen on TV.
Look how many take to the tennis courts when Wimbledon is on, or took to the ice when DOI was on. I agree it can inspire, but educate, I would say not.
Some judges are singers on X-factor, how ever much you hate Cowell, he does know his stuff, he have been in the business for many years. So Cowell may make lots of money if the artist/s do any good, but he have had failures.
Can you tell me where the ones who won the voice are now, are they doing anything or just vanished? I do not know myself, because
(a) i do not watch the voice for obvious reasons
(b) I do not really keep up with modern music, preferring the older stuff myself and a bit of Jazz and classic.
I my opinion X-factor and the Voice are the same sort of thing.
The voice, four coaches who can sing and have made it themselves.
The voice about the voice, not about looks, not about fashion.
The voice no joke acts.
The voice no pantomimes, about the singers.
The voice the coaches introduced once in a few seconds.
X Factor, two coaches can't sing, two have never sung.
XF about fashion, about looks, about a commercial outcome.
XF joke acts added to allow Cowell to take the Mickey out of them and do his famous pre scripted out downs.
Pantomime scripts on XF Judges crying, water thrown, scripted fall outs, about the judges not the singers.
XF The judges introduced twice over about five minutes.
XF is there for Cowells ego, He can't sing he is now too old) and go make money for him.
The people who want adverts on the BBC haven't really thought it through.
Even big, multi national companies have a finite amount they are willing to spend on advertising.
Now they might decide they would pay for an ad during a break in Strictly Come Dancing- but that would almost certainly mean an ad less they would pay for on ITV (I say ITV rather than one of the hundreds of satalite channels, because clearly an ad on terrestrial ITV1 would cost roughly the same as an ad on BBC1)
The main sufferers would be ITV if this ever happened.
The people who want adverts on the BBC haven't really thought it through.
Even big, multi national companies have a finite amount they are willing to spend on advertising.
Now they might decide they would pay for an ad during a break in Strictly Come Dancing- but that would almost certainly mean an ad less they would pay for on ITV (I say ITV rather than one of the hundreds of satalite channels, because clearly an ad on terrestrial ITV1 would cost roughly the same as an ad on BBC1)
The main sufferers would be ITV if this ever happened.
Absolutely right...and by default, the viewers. The same amount of money shared between more providers results in cheaper / poorer programming. That is not positive for anyone.
Depends on how well it does to be honest. some people will watch any old stuff, you only have to look at Big brother.
Ballroom and latin dancing is not commercial, hence why the BBC are right to use it as a vehicle for a show. It also inspires others to take up ballroom and latin dancing across the country, while teaching the nation at the same time too. I've learn't loads about dance from watching Strictly.
It is right that Big Brother is on Ch5. It is neither informative, creative or educational...and I question it's entertainment value too. It is a cheap soap opera really... there to generate money for Endemol and Ch5.
With respect, if I say I have learn't about dance and different genres of dance via Strictly, that is the case. The experienced judges know what they are talking about...and so, inform the nation via the feedback given to the celeb and their pro partner. The same cannot be said of a show like The X Factor. All they say is 'I like the look' / 'perhaps the song was the wrong choice' ... nothing of substance / how to improve at all. Why? because they don't have the knowledge, understanding or experience.
From listening to the feedback the qualified judges provide each week.
I can see the trailer for SCD 2015 now......
Didn't think you can dance, don't know your left from your right, think again, the BBC proudly present this year's SCD with expert tuition for viewers from Len and Co - so put on your sparkly shoes and join the cast, we'll have you dancing like the professionals within seveeern weeks.
......don't forget to get your free plastic dance mat, available from Aldi/Lidl.
Comments
Although it is obvious from the users' posts that he is anti-BC.
I agree with a lot of what you say normally, however, you have to admit that the feedback the judges provide the contestants with on Strictly is credable and constructive delivered by people qualified to pass those comments. The judges do teach the nation about dance. Can the same comparable comments be made about The X Factor in all honesty?
And previous years? Like I said, you can't look at things in isolation.
Sorry. My mistake
What about it?
Don't know about 5 but 1 and 2 are distinctly different from any supposed commercial "equivalent". If you don't believe me go to comparemyradio.com and see for yourself.
It most certainly was. Unless someone did something similar before and I've forgotten about it?
The same could be said of "The Voice" v TXF
Why shouldn't you learn something from a programme just because it's "light entertainment"?
Oh dear. This again.
"Why are we paying for [popular stuff] that the commercial channels could produce?" (Could but don't obviously
But then...
"Why are we forced [sic] to pay for stuff that no-one's watching".
BBC in "no win" situation then.
Other than the two channels having completely different service remits and target demographics, you're absolutely right. (ie you're absolutely wrong
Not jealous of another's success are we, because it sounds very much like it.
Cowell created the franchise and the programmes are produced by him and his production company, are they not allowed to make a return on the millions they must have invested.
He has also created hundreds if not thousands of jobs.
Good luck to the Cowell's of this country, I hope they further succeed and make millions more just to piss off those who disapprove.
SCD isn't a serious dancing competition. It's a sparkly, lovely, sequin-filled show, which exists to brighten up the dreary autumnal weekend evenings. Let's not get too worked up about it.:D
Even big, multi national companies have a finite amount they are willing to spend on advertising.
Now they might decide they would pay for an ad during a break in Strictly Come Dancing- but that would almost certainly mean an ad less they would pay for on ITV (I say ITV rather than one of the hundreds of satalite channels, because clearly an ad on terrestrial ITV1 would cost roughly the same as an ad on BBC1)
The main sufferers would be ITV if this ever happened.
And you know that how? Maybe you time travel to a future without a TV licence.
Eastenders is always trying to beat the soaps on the other side, the voice is also a ratings chaser, that is why they have got, SCD is also a ratings chaser, so is pointless to a certain degree.
You always seem to see the good in everything even a corrupted organisation like the EU.
Depends on how well it does to be honest. some people will watch any old stuff, you only have to look at Big brother.
Agree.
I have said this so many times...even here on this thread.
Simple economics that some do not understand.
The TV advertising budget by companies will NOT increase.
So " if" the BBC takes Ads and the vast majority here in the pool do not want that.
If they do that income is firstly taken from existing TV channels like ITV, but as well as that ITV are not going to lay back and not fight that, so there will be a battle.
As the laws of supply and demand go, the supply of Ad slots double the income cuts in half, so not only is commercial TV in competition with BBC for Ads their and all TV channels income falls, BBC to attract Ads undercuts ITV and ITV fights back and cuts causing a bit battle like supermarkets now and with income down they all have to take subscription and cut budgets.
You get wall to wall Jeremy Vile, ITV has been cutting its budgets since 2009. And you get more soaps more imports less Downton and there will be less spent on news.
Foreign investors, through economies of scale will take UK TV over as they have the shows abroad so can make money with less investment.
Then with News budgets cut we rely on the Murdoch, group to provide News and we know what they do to influence elections.
In fact I suspect Murdoch employees post here on DS and this thread as long term they benefit.
Finally it does just cost 40 p per house hold per day for the LF that gives universal access for people on low incomes and say pensioners to get good TV now access to sport Match of the Day, the Olyimpics so those who say get Ads on the BBC cut the LF are robbing the poor of good TV and making things like TV sport I reachable for poor incomes and the access to TV for the very rich only.
Think very carefully what you wish for, you get something else, and some here are over influencing arguments, and like newspapers like the Mail group who have commercial TV interests do not honestly declare their vested interests to influence the gullible .
Some judges are singers on X-factor, how ever much you hate Cowell, he does know his stuff, he have been in the business for many years. So Cowell may make lots of money if the artist/s do any good, but he have had failures.
Can you tell me where the ones who won the voice are now, are they doing anything or just vanished? I do not know myself, because
(a) i do not watch the voice for obvious reasons
(b) I do not really keep up with modern music, preferring the older stuff myself and a bit of Jazz and classic.
I my opinion X-factor and the Voice are the same sort of thing.
Strictly is educational, it's inspired many to pick up dancing and learn dances, it shows the effort you need to put in, and even the benefits of dance, esteem and loosing weight.
That is life, people make money, what a shock.
You could also apply that reasoning to almost anything seen on TV.
Look how many take to the tennis courts when Wimbledon is on, or took to the ice when DOI was on. I agree it can inspire, but educate, I would say not.
The voice, four coaches who can sing and have made it themselves.
The voice about the voice, not about looks, not about fashion.
The voice no joke acts.
The voice no pantomimes, about the singers.
The voice the coaches introduced once in a few seconds.
X Factor, two coaches can't sing, two have never sung.
XF about fashion, about looks, about a commercial outcome.
XF joke acts added to allow Cowell to take the Mickey out of them and do his famous pre scripted out downs.
Pantomime scripts on XF Judges crying, water thrown, scripted fall outs, about the judges not the singers.
XF The judges introduced twice over about five minutes.
XF is there for Cowells ego, He can't sing he is now too old) and go make money for him.
And where is the quality going to come from then.
Spot on
Absolutely right...and by default, the viewers. The same amount of money shared between more providers results in cheaper / poorer programming. That is not positive for anyone.
Ballroom and latin dancing is not commercial, hence why the BBC are right to use it as a vehicle for a show. It also inspires others to take up ballroom and latin dancing across the country, while teaching the nation at the same time too. I've learn't loads about dance from watching Strictly.
It is right that Big Brother is on Ch5. It is neither informative, creative or educational...and I question it's entertainment value too. It is a cheap soap opera really... there to generate money for Endemol and Ch5.
That's right, don't go to dance lessons if you want to learn to dance. Watch Strictly instead....
How does that work?
From listening to the feedback the qualified judges provide each week.
I listen to the feedback the X Factor judges give to the contestants on X Factor but that doesn't mean I'm learning how to sing.
(Mind you, don't want to be a singer anyway.)
Strictly in no way teaches you how to dance!
With respect, if I say I have learn't about dance and different genres of dance via Strictly, that is the case. The experienced judges know what they are talking about...and so, inform the nation via the feedback given to the celeb and their pro partner. The same cannot be said of a show like The X Factor. All they say is 'I like the look' / 'perhaps the song was the wrong choice' ... nothing of substance / how to improve at all. Why? because they don't have the knowledge, understanding or experience.
I can see the trailer for SCD 2015 now......
Didn't think you can dance, don't know your left from your right, think again, the BBC proudly present this year's SCD with expert tuition for viewers from Len and Co - so put on your sparkly shoes and join the cast, we'll have you dancing like the professionals within seveeern weeks.
......don't forget to get your free plastic dance mat, available from Aldi/Lidl.