The problem with the voice is that there is no 'bad cop'

PlausibleDenialPlausibleDenial Posts: 978
Forum Member
✭✭
There are too many 'good cops' in the voice and at times it becomes very sycophantic. Especially when people haven't done that well in a performance. Its like listening to liblabcon's as judges.... its all very much the same.

What musical icon do you think would make a good 'bad cop'?

I'm kind of leaning towards Elton John or Boy George!

Comments

  • barrcode88barrcode88 Posts: 6,849
    Forum Member
    Don't need one to be honest, the whole bad guy role has become too cliched.
  • -Jade"-Jade" Posts: 9,017
    Forum Member
    That's what I like about it. I don't think a 'bad cop' is necessary. In the earlier stages, if somebody has had tuning issues or other problems with their performance it has usually been mentioned - fair enough, there was none of that on the live show, but I enjoyed how positive everything was. Personally, I don't want to watch somebody being torn to shreds on live tv - there's enough of it on basically every other reality show. Plus I don't really think it fits with the coaching aspect of this show.
  • attackmusicattackmusic Posts: 3,828
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    -Jade" wrote: »
    That's what I like about it. I don't think a 'bad cop' is necessary. In the earlier stages, if somebody has had tuning issues or other problems with their performance it has usually been mentioned - fair enough, there was none of that on the live show, but I enjoyed how positive everything was. Personally, I don't want to watch somebody being torn to shreds on live tv - there's enough of it on basically every other reality show. Plus I don't really think it fits with the coaching aspect of this show.

    Agreed. I hate all the nastiness that comes with other talent shows. I like the fact that on this show they are there to help and to encourage and not rip people to shreds in front of millions of viewers. I like the nice atmosphere :)
  • MenkMenk Posts: 13,831
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I agree with OP - but we don't need a 'bad' cop, we just need honesty and a down to earth appraisal.

    If anyone has seen this season's American Idol, they will know what I mean when I say that Harry Connick junior is the best talent show judge ever. And he is not nasty, just honest and blunt. But he states that he is only doing it like this to help the candidates to be their best so that they can take advantage of his knowledge and experience and not just get a pat on the head every week.

    It's not just about telling someone they are out of tune, although he does, frequently, but he gives them advice on defining themselves as an artist, performance as a whole, use of the stage, not getting carried away by the audience and many, many other things that talent show contestants always need help with. He's a great judge.

    Also, the advantage of having a tough judge (which is what he is - if he says 'good job' it really means something!) is that it brings out the best in the other judges - they don't feel inhibited about adding their critique and you get 3 solid pieces of advice, rather than 3 different ways of saying how good a performer is.

    As a viewer, I find 4 judges trying to find a different way to compliment a performer really boring. What is the point of having a wealth of experience on the panel if they are just going to come out with the same kind of comments a layman would make? One of the problems is that 3 out of 4 of the judges are inarticulate and another problem is that they patronise (both the contestants and the viewers) - it takes balls to be an honest judge, and I don't mean the type of role that Cowell plays, I mean real honesty.
  • lulu glulu g Posts: 52,620
    Forum Member
    Menk wrote: »
    I agree with OP - but we don't need a 'bad' cop, we just need honesty and a down to earth appraisal.

    If anyone has seen this season's American Idol, they will know what I mean when I say that Harry Connick junior is the best talent show judge ever. And he is not nasty, just honest and blunt. But he states that he is only doing it like this to help the candidates to be their best so that they can take advantage of his knowledge and experience and not just get a pat on the head every week.

    It's not just about telling someone they are out of tune, although he does, frequently, but he gives them advice on defining themselves as an artist, performance as a whole, use of the stage, not getting carried away by the audience and many, many other things that talent show contestants always need help with. He's a great judge.

    Also, the advantage of having a tough judge (which is what he is - if he says 'good job' it really means something!) is that it brings out the best in the other judges - they don't feel inhibited about adding their critique and you get 3 solid pieces of advice, rather than 3 different ways of saying how good a performer is.

    As a viewer, I find 4 judges trying to find a different way to compliment a performer really boring. What is the point of having a wealth of experience on the panel if they are just going to come out with the same kind of comments a layman would make? One of the problems is that 3 out of 4 of the judges are inarticulate and another problem is that they patronise (both the contestants and the viewers) - it takes balls to be an honest judge, and I don't mean the type of role that Cowell plays, I mean real honesty.
    I agree with this. I don't want nasty, but I don't want sycophantic either. And yes, Harry Connick is the best judge ever. He is very knowledgeable, articulate, and witty. He's honest but not brutal, and he really does try to give constructive criticism and helpful advice.
  • SteganStegan Posts: 5,039
    Forum Member
    Never really though about the possibility of a 'bad cop' element as I think The Voice works well enough without it. Having said that, it could be quite interesting to have the 'bad cop' as you describe it which could bring a new dimension to the show.

    Boy George would be good - but I think he might have issues with this type of show anyway. Elton John simply doesn't need to do it, so I doubt he'd be in the frame for it. Not sure who else could or would play the 'baddie' role.

    Oh, maybe George Michael if he could stay sober long enough! Lily Allen maybe? Robbie Williams? Struggling with this....sure I'll think of someone perfect for the role given time.
  • drakhendrakhen Posts: 1,379
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    There's definitely a difference between ripping someone apart on TV and giving constructive criticism. One of the things I liked about the first two series of The Voice is I felt they did the latter well. But it's been really missing this series. Someone really should have given some constructive criticism to Rachael last Saturday after that trainwreck of a performance.
  • cas1977cas1977 Posts: 6,399
    Forum Member
    Menk wrote: »
    I agree with OP - but we don't need a 'bad' cop, we just need honesty and a down to earth appraisal.

    If anyone has seen this season's American Idol, they will know what I mean when I say that Harry Connick junior is the best talent show judge ever. And he is not nasty, just honest and blunt. But he states that he is only doing it like this to help the candidates to be their best so that they can take advantage of his knowledge and experience and not just get a pat on the head every week.

    It's not just about telling someone they are out of tune, although he does, frequently, but he gives them advice on defining themselves as an artist, performance as a whole, use of the stage, not getting carried away by the audience and many, many other things that talent show contestants always need help with. He's a great judge.

    Also, the advantage of having a tough judge (which is what he is - if he says 'good job' it really means something!) is that it brings out the best in the other judges - they don't feel inhibited about adding their critique and you get 3 solid pieces of advice, rather than 3 different ways of saying how good a performer is.

    As a viewer, I find 4 judges trying to find a different way to compliment a performer really boring. What is the point of having a wealth of experience on the panel if they are just going to come out with the same kind of comments a layman would make? One of the problems is that 3 out of 4 of the judges are inarticulate and another problem is that they patronise (both the contestants and the viewers) - it takes balls to be an honest judge, and I don't mean the type of role that Cowell plays, I mean real honesty.
    Good post and I really agree with you. That is what makes me uncomfortable about watching The Voice (as well as not giving a damn about the contestants). I found Will I ams' appraising of contestants particularly awful to watch, I remember thinking, god, they're only bloody singing!! And they're not even established professional singers yet!

    Don't remember many times where you get to hear a technical criticism, which I'd like to hear, as it makes it a bit more real. Else, it basically means anyone can be a judge as long as they've got a good range of adjectives to use!

    If TXF is bad at tearing people down, the it's the opposite with The Voice. Surely there should be a middle ground, something like Harry Connick Jnr you've just mentioned?
  • troy4783troy4783 Posts: 3,785
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I think the Coaches just need to be more honest with their opnions .
  • MenkMenk Posts: 13,831
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    cas1977 wrote: »
    Good post and I really agree with you. That is what makes me uncomfortable about watching The Voice (as well as not giving a damn about the contestants). I found Will I ams' appraising of contestants particularly awful to watch, I remember thinking, god, they're only bloody singing!! And they're not even established professional singers yet!

    Don't remember many times where you get to hear a technical criticism, which I'd like to hear, as it makes it a bit more real. Else, it basically means anyone can be a judge as long as they've got a good range of adjectives to use!

    If TXF is bad at tearing people down, the it's the opposite with The Voice. Surely there should be a middle ground, something like Harry Connick Jnr you've just mentioned?

    HCJ comes across as being 100% sure of his convictions and that being popular with the audience would never sway his judgement - he gets boo'd regularly. He sees his position as being there to help the contestants and not for one moment for his own popularity or ego boost. On top of that, he is one of the top musicians around and has a very charismatic personality, is articulate and funny.

    Even a big name like Kylie comes across as needy and desperate to be liked and there have been many more of her ilk. To be a credible judge, you have to leave all that at the door and try to help the contestants (imo) but that doesn't seem to be what we are about here - it's still not a serious singing competition, it's just Saturday night viewing and they want a few big names on the box drumming up a bit of feel-good telly.

    Also on the panel in AI is Jennifer Lopez, their bit of sparkle and glamour to add to the proceedings. But she too is a credible judge - she comes across as knowledgeable, has a wide ranging interest in music, is very passionate and (despite some criticism) is more articulate than practically all of the judges on the UK shows.

    I dunno, the Americans just seem to do it better than us, and the singing is always the star - plus, the singers are way better than ours. Although I love him to bits, HCJ would kill a show like The Voice. Because the standard here is so low, our Saturday night viewing would be filled with critiques which the public would find baffling and negative and there would be very little let up.

    Gary Barlow was the 'credible' judge on the XF, but you wouldn't know it, as for whatever reason, he followed suit and praised where it wasn't due, and failed to criticise where it was necessary. He was also known for his bluntness, but failed to deliver, so either the judges are not allowed to speak their mind, or they guard their public persona too preciously. It does make you wonder whether there is anything in between cloying sycophant and pantomime villain.
  • cas1977cas1977 Posts: 6,399
    Forum Member
    Menk wrote: »
    HCJ comes across as being 100% sure of his convictions and that being popular with the audience would never sway his judgement - he gets boo'd regularly. He sees his position as being there to help the contestants and not for one moment for his own popularity or ego boost. On top of that, he is one of the top musicians around and has a very charismatic personality, is articulate and funny.

    Even a big name like Kylie comes across as needy and desperate to be liked and there have been many more of her ilk. To be a credible judge, you have to leave all that at the door and try to help the contestants (imo) but that doesn't seem to be what we are about here - it's still not a serious singing competition, it's just Saturday night viewing and they want a few big names on the box drumming up a bit of feel-good telly.

    Also on the panel in AI is Jennifer Lopez, their bit of sparkle and glamour to add to the proceedings. But she too is a credible judge - she comes across as knowledgeable, has a wide ranging interest in music, is very passionate and (despite some criticism) is more articulate than practically all of the judges on the UK shows.

    I dunno, the Americans just seem to do it better than us, and the singing is always the star - plus, the singers are way better than ours. Although I love him to bits, HCJ would kill a show like The Voice. Because the standard here is so low, our Saturday night viewing would be filled with critiques which the public would find baffling and negative and there would be very little let up.

    Gary Barlow was the 'credible' judge on the XF, but you wouldn't know it, as for whatever reason, he followed suit and praised where it wasn't due, and failed to criticise where it was necessary. He was also known for his bluntness, but failed to deliver, so either the judges are not allowed to speak their mind, or they guard their public persona too preciously. It does make you wonder whether there is anything in between cloying sycophant and pantomime villain.
    I would absolutely LOVE J-Lo to be on The Voice here! Although I think maybe her personality (as well as HCJ) might just overpower everything else! But she is just too damn good. For me, she's like Nicole Scherzinger (sorry spelling mistake) and they both seem to have it all. Though I suppose behind the scenes, they still have to pander to what the producers want, as they're still getting paid etc.

    I think if the older woman wins, I think her name is Sally, then that'll be the final nail in their coffin, as obv there is no way she's going to be a chart success and/or be successful in the public eye etc, and so that'll be 3 series they've failed to get a winner.

    I'd like Christina Marie to win, but then again I can't see any of them having that undefinable star quality that few seem to have these days....
  • fireemblemcrazefireemblemcraze Posts: 7,436
    Forum Member
    Fair point, I think it really is needed. Because this sugarcoating isn't good for contestants nor does it make for honest viewing. Again it may be nice for you all to live in this bubble where everything should be nice nice nice, but we needed someone like Jessie J on the panel. Even if she was disliked, she was honest and gave valid critique.
  • Big Boy BarryBig Boy Barry Posts: 35,290
    Forum Member
    The problem with the Voice is that the format prevents people from standing out. By the time we get to the finalists, they have three weeks and that's it. X Factor at least gives the audience time to be familar with the acts.

    I'd change the format to be like this...

    1- Blind Auditions. Every coach gets 12 picks
    2- Battle Rounds. Teams wittled down to 6 each
    3- Elimination. Coaches pick the best 3 of their team.
    4- Lives. 12 acts, eliminated week by week until 3 remain
    5- Final. Winner, runner up and third place decided

    From #4 onwards, all eliminations decided by public vote.
  • fhs man 2fhs man 2 Posts: 7,591
    Forum Member
    It would be funny to see Simon Cowell in one of the chairs after The X Factor ends in 2016.:)
  • BRITLANDBRITLAND Posts: 3,443
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    No the baddie judge role is old and stale, bringing it in wouldn't make any difference at best, could even worsen the show as it could end up being too much like The X Factor
  • Big Boy BarryBig Boy Barry Posts: 35,290
    Forum Member
    "Bad judges" don't work anymore. Even Craig on SCD isn't as bad as people think. He's blunt, but always gives constructive advice. Having nice judges leads to a warmer tone for a TV show, which appeals to a broader family audience. X Factor by comparison has a nastiness to it which I find tedius and unappealing. If The Voice had a "bad judge", I'd stop watching it.
  • brangdonbrangdon Posts: 14,090
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    cas1977 wrote: »
    Good post and I really agree with you. That is what makes me uncomfortable about watching The Voice (as well as not giving a damn about the contestants). I found Will I ams' appraising of contestants particularly awful to watch, I remember thinking, god, they're only bloody singing!! And they're not even established professional singers yet!
    That said, Will seems the one who criticises most often now, even if its only, "A bit pitchy at the start".
  • GoinGagaGoinGaga Posts: 3,153
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    It does seem a bit of a love fest at times between the judges, to the detriment of honest critique. They pretty much say every singer is fabulous and I do sometimes wonder whether I'm listening to the same thing (or it sounds VERY different in the studio). And when one of them actually puts their head above the parapet and tells a singer they were out of tune it's usually to someone who was no where near as bad as a previous singer they heaped praise upon.

    Still enjoy the show though! :)
  • MonaoggMonaogg Posts: 19,990
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    For all her irritating habits Jessie J was more honest with the singers. Although to be fair the differences between the best and worst have not been that much this year. Therefore, what is there to be critical about? By the Live stage no coach wants to appear nasty about a rival coaches team as it looks like bitching, nor can they be critical of their own team members.
  • PlausibleDenialPlausibleDenial Posts: 978
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Menk wrote: »
    I agree with OP - but we don't need a 'bad' cop, we just need honesty and a down to earth appraisal.

    If anyone has seen this season's American Idol, they will know what I mean when I say that Harry Connick junior is the best talent show judge ever. And he is not nasty, just honest and blunt. But he states that he is only doing it like this to help the candidates to be their best so that they can take advantage of his knowledge and experience and not just get a pat on the head every week.

    It's not just about telling someone they are out of tune, although he does, frequently, but he gives them advice on defining themselves as an artist, performance as a whole, use of the stage, not getting carried away by the audience and many, many other things that talent show contestants always need help with. He's a great judge.

    Also, the advantage of having a tough judge (which is what he is - if he says 'good job' it really means something!) is that it brings out the best in the other judges - they don't feel inhibited about adding their critique and you get 3 solid pieces of advice, rather than 3 different ways of saying how good a performer is.

    As a viewer, I find 4 judges trying to find a different way to compliment a performer really boring. What is the point of having a wealth of experience on the panel if they are just going to come out with the same kind of comments a layman would make? One of the problems is that 3 out of 4 of the judges are inarticulate and another problem is that they patronise (both the contestants and the viewers) - it takes balls to be an honest judge, and I don't mean the type of role that Cowell plays, I mean real honesty.

    Yes, I agree with you. I didn't mean 'bad cop' as such but perhaps 'honesty' like someone might get if they were giving an audition or what we might expect from Alan Sugar. Listening to judge trying to out 'wow' each other when a performance or song has been ropey is patronising towards both the contestants and the viewers.
  • PlausibleDenialPlausibleDenial Posts: 978
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    The problem with the Voice is that the format prevents people from standing out. By the time we get to the finalists, they have three weeks and that's it. X Factor at least gives the audience time to be familar with the acts.

    I'd change the format to be like this...

    1- Blind Auditions. Every coach gets 12 picks
    2- Battle Rounds. Teams wittled down to 6 each
    3- Elimination. Coaches pick the best 3 of their team.
    4- Lives. 12 acts, eliminated week by week until 3 remain
    5- Final. Winner, runner up and third place decided

    From #4 onwards, all eliminations decided by public vote.

    Yes, I was a bit disappointed that from the live rounds the individuals still had to battle against each other within their individual teams before going head to head.
    It should have been 12 acts with the eliminations including everyone! (I'm sure it was like that the first year wasn't it?)

    It almost felt a bit 'fixed' this year with the 'pass straight through the final for each character leaving the remaining two to be eliminated in each team by the public vote.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 3,003
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The Voice does have a bad cop - it's the Great British Viewing Public. Bad decisions, lack of support, harshly critical, ruthless.
  • christina83christina83 Posts: 11,115
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I like that there's no bad cop. I hate the Xfactor for their fake bad cop acting, and bitchiness.
    I'd chose the voice over the xfactor any day for that reason. I love that they all have fun together.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,273
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I find this quite amusing as there was a rather large backlash here when Will was negative against Danny's team in the first season (I think it was the first series when he said that he didn't think Danny's team were putting in the amount of effort they should be for the lives).
  • wazzyboywazzyboy Posts: 13,346
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    lulu g wrote: »
    I agree with this. I don't want nasty, but I don't want sycophantic either. And yes, Harry Connick is the best judge ever. He is very knowledgeable, articulate, and witty. He's honest but not brutal, and he really does try to give constructive criticism and helpful advice.

    I suppose you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. Saying helpful stuff to your own acts is one thing, to another coach's and it could be seen as stepping on their toes and/or undermining your own "team".
Sign In or Register to comment.