"I can't imagine a show where they put someone through to the finals, only to slag them off by telling the truth about them week after week."
I can.
Telling the truth to someone who's not done as well as they could've done is not "slagging," them off.
If it's done properly and with sensitivity it amounts to objective criticism and IMO it's far better to hear that from someone than be fed a lot of mindless platitudes which might give a person a false impression of how well they've done.
In some shows when judges have criticized their acts they have often taken it on the chin and come back fighting the following week and these people need to get used to it, because if they're to have any sort of long term career there'll be a lot more of that coming their way..
"They have to find something to praise about thei own act - the other 3 judges are there to tell the truth about other acts than their own, that should be enough to get to the truth."
No they don't, but they could criticize them constructively and let the others, if that's what they're about, "slag them off," it's pretty easy for anyone, including the public to tell the difference between the two..
As for the other judges being there to "tell the truth about other acts than their own."......show us the evidence!
They're giving an opinion, whether it's the "truth," or not, is up for debate.#
Then he shouldn't have accepted the position, but I suppose money talks.
He said he was joining the show to bring some credibility to it.....
Agreed and that didn't last very long did it?
I thought he'd be a breath of fresh air, but he's playing the same old game as the rest of them..with, of course, a massive amount more talent than the rest of them put together, which is what makes it even worse..he actually knows what he's listening to..unlike Louis Walsh..
I thought he'd be a breath of fresh air, but he's playing the same old game as the rest of them..with, of course, a massive amount more talent than the rest of them put together, which is what makes it even worse..he actually knows what he's listening to..unlike Louis Walsh..
Rich.
x
I gave up on X Factor a couple of years ago but was actually pleased when I heard Gary Barlow was going to be a judge because he said he wanted credibility brought back to it....well the bits and pieces I have seen over the past 2 years and read about....what a disappointment!! As I said...it's all about the money...at least be honest about it....:rolleyes:
I gave up on X Factor a couple of years ago but was actually pleased when I heard Gary Barlow was going to be a judge because he said he wanted credibility brought back to it....well the bits and pieces I have seen over the past 2 years and read about....what a disappointment!! As I said...it's all about the money...at least be honest about it....:rolleyes:
I agree..
I gave up on X-Factor after the whole Lucie Jones/Jedward debacle..
I made the effort to watch it again when I heard Gary Barlow was due to be a judge..
I thought that finally they'd chosen someone who totally knows the ropes, has walked the walk and really knows his stuff..but it's been a massive disappointment..
Regarding the money, it's not as though he needs it.
One idea would be for there to be mentors who'd coach their charges and have a serious input into the songs chosen and the performance itself..which would allow for people like Gary to be involved in a different way that wouldn't compromise them and then have an independent panel of judges who are removed from the preparation process like they do on Dancing On Ice, or Strictly.
However, that way would count people like Louis out of the equation as a mentor, as he wouldn't be in a position to coach anybody and someone like Cheryl Cole would be soon find herself out of her depth, working with people who're far more talented than she could ever dream of being.
None of us has the remotest idea what mentors tell their acts during the entire week. So focussing on one carefully edited bit of a t.v. appearance is pointless. We don't know the full picture.
"I can't imagine a show where they put someone through to the finals, only to slag them off by telling the truth about them week after week."
I can.
Telling the truth to someone who's not done as well as they could've done is not "slagging," them off.
If it's done properly and with sensitivity it amounts to objective criticism and IMO it's far better to hear that from someone than be fed a lot of mindless platitudes which might give a person a false impression of how well they've done.
My comments are really about contestants such as Frankie Cocoza, who the mentor has been saddled with, and who take enough criticism from the other judges. Gary would be doing his best for his contestant by giving him a positive critique and would be doing him no favours by adding his 'constructive criticism' to the other judges negative comments.
Many people GB sold out by backing Frankie, but in my eyes, he was just doing his job. He is doing XF for the money, and he does have to play to their tune. I take the comments he makes to his own contestants with a large pinch of salt - but the comments that he makes about other contestants are usually pretty sound.
None of us has the remotest idea what mentors tell their acts during the entire week. So focussing on one carefully edited bit of a t.v. appearance is pointless. We don't know the full picture.
Very true. It makes so much more sense for the mentors to point out the contestant's flaws to their face, and not to the voting public.
So is Gary going to be punished forever for Frankie? We all know the judges don't get much if any say as to who they put through, and last year is over, Frankie is gone and Gary is paid to be honest, he has to be the baddie that is what his role is.
Polly Hudson had made her easy 'always at the Mirror' career out of playing the quite contrary Mary, saying the opposite to what most people think, just to be controversial. She has no journalistic ability otherwise.
"It’s always his opinion you’re waiting to hear,"
No it isn't - gloom and boredom descends whenever the rarely animated and always witless executioner speaks. Instead the one most people will want to hear is Nicole, simply because she's fresh and new, and provides a combination of professional critique and humour.
Comments
I can.
Telling the truth to someone who's not done as well as they could've done is not "slagging," them off.
If it's done properly and with sensitivity it amounts to objective criticism and IMO it's far better to hear that from someone than be fed a lot of mindless platitudes which might give a person a false impression of how well they've done.
In some shows when judges have criticized their acts they have often taken it on the chin and come back fighting the following week and these people need to get used to it, because if they're to have any sort of long term career there'll be a lot more of that coming their way..
"They have to find something to praise about thei own act - the other 3 judges are there to tell the truth about other acts than their own, that should be enough to get to the truth."
No they don't, but they could criticize them constructively and let the others, if that's what they're about, "slag them off," it's pretty easy for anyone, including the public to tell the difference between the two..
As for the other judges being there to "tell the truth about other acts than their own."......show us the evidence!
They're giving an opinion, whether it's the "truth," or not, is up for debate.#
Rich.
x
Agreed and that didn't last very long did it?
I thought he'd be a breath of fresh air, but he's playing the same old game as the rest of them..with, of course, a massive amount more talent than the rest of them put together, which is what makes it even worse..he actually knows what he's listening to..unlike Louis Walsh..
Rich.
x
I gave up on X Factor a couple of years ago but was actually pleased when I heard Gary Barlow was going to be a judge because he said he wanted credibility brought back to it....well the bits and pieces I have seen over the past 2 years and read about....what a disappointment!! As I said...it's all about the money...at least be honest about it....:rolleyes:
He must be sorry now.
I agree..
I gave up on X-Factor after the whole Lucie Jones/Jedward debacle..
I made the effort to watch it again when I heard Gary Barlow was due to be a judge..
I thought that finally they'd chosen someone who totally knows the ropes, has walked the walk and really knows his stuff..but it's been a massive disappointment..
Regarding the money, it's not as though he needs it.
One idea would be for there to be mentors who'd coach their charges and have a serious input into the songs chosen and the performance itself..which would allow for people like Gary to be involved in a different way that wouldn't compromise them and then have an independent panel of judges who are removed from the preparation process like they do on Dancing On Ice, or Strictly.
However, that way would count people like Louis out of the equation as a mentor, as he wouldn't be in a position to coach anybody and someone like Cheryl Cole would be soon find herself out of her depth, working with people who're far more talented than she could ever dream of being.
Rich.
x
My comments are really about contestants such as Frankie Cocoza, who the mentor has been saddled with, and who take enough criticism from the other judges. Gary would be doing his best for his contestant by giving him a positive critique and would be doing him no favours by adding his 'constructive criticism' to the other judges negative comments.
Many people GB sold out by backing Frankie, but in my eyes, he was just doing his job. He is doing XF for the money, and he does have to play to their tune. I take the comments he makes to his own contestants with a large pinch of salt - but the comments that he makes about other contestants are usually pretty sound.
Very true. It makes so much more sense for the mentors to point out the contestant's flaws to their face, and not to the voting public.
"It’s always his opinion you’re waiting to hear,"
No it isn't - gloom and boredom descends whenever the rarely animated and always witless executioner speaks. Instead the one most people will want to hear is Nicole, simply because she's fresh and new, and provides a combination of professional critique and humour.