Will we get another bland easy listening winner
DUNDEEBOY
Posts: 109,640
Forum Member
✭✭✭✭
I noticed there is a certain style of winner popular on this show, bland and inoffensive usually.
So far this year we have a big support on here for the new Barbara Dickson in Sally and Femi I noticed seems popular , yet seems incredibly bland easy listening and Kylie must have an inkling how voters will vote with saving him.
People are still saying the winner doesnt matter but it should do.
So far this year we have a big support on here for the new Barbara Dickson in Sally and Femi I noticed seems popular , yet seems incredibly bland easy listening and Kylie must have an inkling how voters will vote with saving him.
People are still saying the winner doesnt matter but it should do.
0
Comments
Sorry, but if I do vote, it will be for the person I think has the best voice, and while it may be old fashioned, I happen to prefer singers who just sing - no vocal acrobatics or affectations. It also helps if they understand the lyrics they're singing and are able to convey the emotion in the lyrics to the audience.
With the right material, he could do very well in the music industry indeed.
So far, he's performed a Stevie Wonder song and a Marvin Gaye one and neither of those artists could ever be described as bland easy listening by any stretch of the imagination
Because he's generic? His tone is like any other soul singer's? Even Tom Jones sounded distinct.
Don't forget Rachael - everyone's going to love her - simple, ordinary voice. People are going to vote in bulk for such a generic voice. And Rachael does runs and vocal acrobatics too? Plenty of 'vocal affectations' there...Sally sang like that too. In truth it's more because Rachael has a safe familiar tone that people will flock to vote for her.
Also Sally's not just a Barbara Dickson. She's got an interesting tone and isn't just generic. I was shocked when I heard her version of Dear Darlin - she transformed the song and made it sound fresh. She's a crowd pleaser yes but an interesting one...I really wouldn't mind her winning. But Rachael just screams out ordinary...
With a few exception, I think most of TXF winners have been fairly MOR as well which is why the runners up tend to do better after the show. A trend which has repeated with TVUK as well with Bo doing better than Michele and Leah doing better than Andrea (e.g. currently playing 20,000 seat arenas as Will I Am's support act while Andrea did a few Church halls and then disappeared)
As to whether it is important or not is less certain. As has been proved you don't have to win one of these shows to be successful. I guess it all depends on what you call successful. To me if you can earn a decent living singing then that's being successful. If you can top the charts on a regular basis over a number of years that is being REALLY successful.
To help its credibility It certainly won't do the show any harm to have a REALLY successful winner but if this year the winner is going to be a Sally or Femi then in my opinion it isn't going to happen. At best they will fall in the successful category.
I love Sally's voice and love Fenni's story. Will I vote for them if they make the lives most probably yes. Will I be happy if either of them win again the answer will be yes. Would I buy an album by either of them well that depends. However, what I do know is that I'll be watching the voice next year regardless of the winner because it's an entertaining show which I thoroughly enjoy.
Is this show not The Voice though? Are we meant to vote for people based off their background or because of their singing?
Yes we are but, the fact remains that once we know a little more about contestants it does influence our choices. Even though (imo) Misha B was a talented vocalist who should have been in the final of TXF, she was toast once Tulisa hinted about "bullying". That's why I ignore all the "hype" about the winner being the "next best thing" and enjoy the programmes for what they are: Saturday night entertainment.
I disagree as I don't think there is such a thing as a generic soul singer but then that's my genre and I lean far more towards soul singers than any other and probably hear things in their voices than others who are not so obsessed with the genre do.
I think Femi could do very well indeed and there is a market for him. Rachel, I can't even place who she is so that's how big an impression she's made on me.
I could not agree more Laura.
It's just a bit of a shame that we've seen so many talented people with such interesting styles this year but we'll end up getting 4 of the most generic choices for our final.
I happen to think Sally is the very antithesis of bland.
What's bland for one can be utterly captivating for someone else.
It doesn't have to be bland and uninteresting, if a song is sung in tune and with feeling. I for one am sick of ear piercing shrieking, which runs around the notes that are supposed to be sung, so much, that the tune gets entirely lost.
I agree with this and unless I'm very mistaken there actually seemed to be far less of the "vocal gymnastics" in the battles this year than last year
Oh definitely. After reading some of the comments from people in this forum who obviously think as I do, but were watching the battle rounds anyway, I decided to watch some of them, and I've ended up watching all of them (with a few getting fast forwarded). I think it has been a huge improvement on last year.
To me, although soul music is a genre, I think every soul singer sounds different and Femi has a voice I will remember.
I really hope he does well.
Also, the question of generic, as stated by fireemblemcraze, is a bit of a side issue and certainly doesn't have to equate to 'bland'.
All the singers on The Voice who have made it through sing within a genre, whether it's soul, jazz, rock, indie, or the 'trying to be different' genre.
'Bland' is something completely different and is often in the ear of the listener.
(Although I did think that Andrea was 'bland' last year - but that was my personal view, rather than an estimation of her music).
Whether they go onto do big things I could not give a toss, once these programmes finish I move on.
this
I do agree but I think the show needs to someone to have even moderate success this time round to save it being considered an absolute waste of time.
Both previous winners have flopped spectacularly, as most people could have seen coming a mile off, and I do think they need someone to come out of the show as a relative success very soon
A number 7 album is not a spectacular flop imo.
Andrea has'nt flopped. Her debut album reached No 7, and she has been getting loads of gigs.
For someone who had the platform she had to perform in front of millions for a couple of months, it's an absolutely spectacular flop. But then I think it was as predictable as night following day that she wasn't going to be a success
So why did she win then? People liked her more than anyone else on the show. In fact she won by a country mile, so it does'nt say much for all the other contestants in the show does it.
Likeability is one thing and Marketability is another. She had likeability in spades but it was clear she would never be pulling up trees when it came to being a commercial success.
Also winning these type of shows isn't the end game as runners-up often out perform the winners. Bo did far better than Leanne from series 1 and with Leah currently supporting Will on the European leg of his tour an so performing to 1000's it could be argued she has already out performed Andrea commercially and she still has an album to come.