Hmmm. He stood there and sang the songs - there's not much the show can do to change that.
You don't think the editors/producers of the show can present the contestants in certain ways to achieve the results they want? Really?
I'll give you an easy one: Week 1 he was the penultimate performance and was considered one of the best of the night. After that, he was pretty much consistently in the first half of the show, despite being considered one of the best of the night by many people on American Anthems week and Guilty Pleasures week. And I'd also argue EJ week, as it was such a poor week for so many of the contestants. But by never letting him close the show, as they did with contestants such as Katie, Cher, 1D etc (who are all probably equal or lesser vocalists to him) he never gave the impression of a knock out performance.
There are many, many other things they can do, and did do, to make him the first major sacrifice in Dannii's category, and the 'shock' exit of the series to bump up people's votes for other contestants.
Mary was clearly in a bad frame of mind when she sang There You'll Be.It wasn't just tuning issues,her body language suggested she was hating every moment of being on stage.Whether this was caused by the song,or she was having a terrible week in general is open to debate : probably the latter as she has never been near as bad as this in any of her other performances.
I'm putting it purely down to song choice. As I said earlier, the song didn't allow her to do her usual big belter performance so she looked as if she was struggling to hold it in.
For such a 'smaller' song than she's used to it actually overpowered her.
You don't think the editors/producers of the show can present the contestants in certain ways to achieve the results they want? Really?
I'll give you an easy one: Week 1 he was the penultimate performance and was considered one of the best of the night. After that, he was pretty much consistently in the first half of the show, despite being considered one of the best of the night by many people on American Anthems week and Guilty Pleasures week. And I'd also argue EJ week, as it was such a poor week for so many of the contestants. But by never letting him close the show, as they did with contestants such as Katie, Cher, 1D etc (who are all probably equal or lesser vocalists to him) he never gave the impression of a knock out performance.
There are many, many other things they can do, and did do, to make him the first major sacrifice in Dannii's category, and the 'shock' exit of the series to bump up people's votes for other contestants.
I'm sorry but I truly don't believe any of these things made a difference. I don't buy into the conspiracy theories I'm afraid.
I'm sorry but I truly don't believe any of these things made a difference. I don't buy into the conspiracy theories I'm afraid.
It's hardly a conspiracy theory, it's basic common sense. Manipulation is rife on this show. They want to make money, they want to keep it dramatic and exciting, and they want to end up with the winner they feel will sell the most records. Those are their three main objectives, and the show is edited around achieving them.
Believe me, if the constesants stood there and sang each week, without the production values, the editing, the VTs and the biased judge's comments, I'd be first in line to agree with you that there's no manipulation. But that doesn't happen, because nobody would watch. The X Factor is essentially a soap, with the storylines written for the contestants and judges week on week. You only need to look at how easily they took Wagner out last week, and Jedward at the same point last year (ie. before the judge's save was dropped) to realise that.
It's hardly a conspiracy theory, it's basic common sense. Manipulation is rife on this show. They want to make money, they want to keep it dramatic and exciting, and they want to end up with the winner they feel will sell the most records. Those are their three main objectives, and the show is edited around achieving them.
Believe me, if the constesants stood there and sang each week, without the production values, the editing, the VTs and the biased judge's comments, I'd be first in line to agree with you that there's no manipulation. But that doesn't happen, because nobody would watch. The X Factor is essentially a soap, with the storylines written for the contestants and judges week on week. You only need to look at how easily they took Wagner out last week, and Jedward at the same point last year (ie. before the judge's save was dropped) to realise that.
Oh I don't disagree that there is a degree of manipulation when it comes to who is in the show in the first place and who is saved/sent home by the judges. This has always been the case. But even without that, Aiden would still be history.
As I said, he got worse every week, didn't get enough votes and gave the poorest sing-off performance.
You don't think the editors/producers of the show can present the contestants in certain ways to achieve the results they want? Really?
I'll give you an easy one: Week 1 he was the penultimate performance and was considered one of the best of the night. After that, he was pretty much consistently in the first half of the show, despite being considered one of the best of the night by many people on American Anthems week and Guilty Pleasures week. And I'd also argue EJ week, as it was such a poor week for so many of the contestants. But by never letting him close the show, as they did with contestants such as Katie, Cher, 1D etc (who are all probably equal or lesser vocalists to him) he never gave the impression of a knock out performance.
There are many, many other things they can do, and did do, to make him the first major sacrifice in Dannii's category, and the 'shock' exit of the series to bump up people's votes for other contestants.
Yes but in retrospect, without remembering where any of those songs were, the performances were still terrible.
Terrible to you, perhaps. Terrible to everyone? Probably not, don't you think?
Terrible to the people on this thread who thought they were terrible. The claim was that they only *thought* they were terrible because of his position in the show. I was just pointing out that this long after the actual show, the order they sang in doesn't matter.
I'm just discussing 'terrible' in the context it was presented here.
I understand the Aiden debate I lie on the side he is terrible but now this thread has been hi-jacked by that waste again. Can we move on because Aiden fans will never agree he is just plain terrible.
Terrible to the people on this thread who thought they were terrible. The claim was that they only *thought* they were terrible because of his position in the show. I was just pointing out that this long after the actual show, the order they sang in doesn't matter.
I'm just discussing 'terrible' in the context it was presented here.
You didn't really present this as your view on what was the worst of the series. You quoted a post in which I defended him (and which was not a response to people's views on this thread about his 'worst' performance, one of which I pointed out as my personal worst of the competition, but a response to a post in which researchshirley claimed he had deteriorated throughout the competition, and actually had no relevance to the original thread question.)
If you'd like to name which of Aiden's performances were bad, go ahead - I already have. If, however, you're going to quote my post and then make a sweeping generalisation, don't be surprised if I respond back.
If it was the case that all his performances were terrible, surely he'd have been voted out within the first couple of weeks? Are we to assume that all acts who have been voted out at Aiden's stage or earlier in the competition are terrible, or might we gather that, sometimes, there are other factors that influence this decision?
I understand the Aiden debate I lie on the side he is terrible but now this thread has been hi-jacked by that waste again. Can we move on because Aiden fans will never agree he is just plain terrible.
Yes but we are here to discuss are we not?
So ok - the fact that I think he was terrible is an opinon, granted. However, people seem intent on believing that he was out of the competition because he was cheated of something, rather than because he just wasn't popular enough.
If it was the case that all his performances were terrible, surely he'd have been voted out within the first couple of weeks? Are we to assume that all acts who have been voted out at Aiden's stage or earlier in the competition are terrible, or might we gather that, sometimes, there are other factors that influence this decision?
Not really. He obviously he has some fans (many of you seem to be on this forum.) I can also see why some people went for him at first. He's not ugly and he seemed to be doing something different, although not to my taste.
He just didn't cut it in the long run, that's all.
Anyway - back to worse performances. I also thought Cher doing Hard Knock Life was fairly embarrassing.
You didn't really present this as your view on what was the worst of the series. You quoted a post in which I defended him (and which was not a response to people's views on this thread about his 'worst' performance, one of which I pointed out as my personal worst of the competition, but a response to a post in which researchshirley claimed he had deteriorated throughout the competition, and actually had no relevance to the original thread question.)
Both of your responses to researchshirley basically flat out called her opinion wrong. You said:
Nah. He stayed great throughout the competition. Nothing Compares 2 U and DAF were great performances and great vocals. What changed was the show's presentation of him.
Basically you're saying that researchshirely only thought the way she did because she had been manipulated by the show. That her opinion was wrong. Someone else then said that they didn't feel that the running order of the show affefcted how they felt about his performances. You then wrote a long post beggining:
You don't think the editors/producers of the show can present the contestants in certain ways to achieve the results they want? Really?
basically saying that this person was wrong - that they thought Aiden was terrible because the judges wanted him to think Aiden was terrible.
The purpose of my post was simply to point out that it is very possible to go and watch these performances independently of each other, and still find them terrible regardless of the part of the show they were sung in.
You then accused me of stating my own opinion as fact, which is what you had spent the previous page of discussion doing yourself, and the page before that making excuses for Aiden (he was sad, he was emotional, etc). The entire point of my post was that you seem unable to accept that a lot of people didn't vote for Aiden simply because they thought he was crap.
If you'd like to name which of Aiden's performances were bad, go ahead - I already have. If, however, you're going to quote my post and then make a sweeping generalisation, don't be surprised if I respond back.
I was referring to the same performances you were. I thought Aiden was great at the start and then got worse and worse as the show went on. However I felt he actually got worse whereas you think it's because he sung towards the beginning of the show.
So ok - the fact that I think he was terrible is an opinon, granted. However, people seem intent on believing that he was out of the competition because he was cheated of something, rather than because he just wasn't popular enough.
Oh, that's fair enough. I don't think you'll find many Aiden fans who believed he was going to win. Quite a few, however, believe that he was about as popular as some of the others that stayed in after him - Paije, Katie, Cher, Mary spring to mind - and that the voting figures, if they're released, will back this up in due course (if they don't, I'll admit I was wrong in this respect.)
What Aiden didn't get, however, was the same chance that acts like him, who typically don't do well in this type of contest, got. He wasn't saved when he should have been (and we can argue about this until we're blue in the face, because I accept that lots of people thought his sing-off was poor, but it was nowhere near as poor as Katie's the week before, and she was still saved despite that.) His comments from the judges on the week he left were deceptive, and he never got a later slot in the show after the first week. All of these things if reversed might have led people to believe that he was improving. He would almost certainly have benefited from the rebound vote the following week if he'd been saved by the judges.
And yeah, we've gone wildly off-topic now. So I'll add to my list of really bad performances: Matt's Bleeding Love was hugely frustrating and below his usual standard.
You then accused me of stating my own opinion as fact, which is what you had spent the previous page of discussion doing yourself, and the page before that making excuses for Aiden (he was sad, he was emotional, etc). The entire point of my post was that you seem unable to accept that a lot of people didn't vote for Aiden simply because they thought he was crap.
Where did I actually do this? Sorry if you got that impression. People present their opinions as facts on here all the time. As you've pointed out, I do it, and I'm sure you do too. It would be annoying if we had to begin every sentence with 'My personal opinion is'. That's obviously a given. But I don't think I've ever criticised someone else for doing it. If you're talking about the 'sweeping generalisation' part... that's not quite the same thing!
Comments
You don't think the editors/producers of the show can present the contestants in certain ways to achieve the results they want? Really?
I'll give you an easy one: Week 1 he was the penultimate performance and was considered one of the best of the night. After that, he was pretty much consistently in the first half of the show, despite being considered one of the best of the night by many people on American Anthems week and Guilty Pleasures week. And I'd also argue EJ week, as it was such a poor week for so many of the contestants. But by never letting him close the show, as they did with contestants such as Katie, Cher, 1D etc (who are all probably equal or lesser vocalists to him) he never gave the impression of a knock out performance.
There are many, many other things they can do, and did do, to make him the first major sacrifice in Dannii's category, and the 'shock' exit of the series to bump up people's votes for other contestants.
I'm putting it purely down to song choice. As I said earlier, the song didn't allow her to do her usual big belter performance so she looked as if she was struggling to hold it in.
For such a 'smaller' song than she's used to it actually overpowered her.
I'm sorry but I truly don't believe any of these things made a difference. I don't buy into the conspiracy theories I'm afraid.
cher stay
matt come together
wagner- anything really. lets be honest
mary - brass in pocket
It's hardly a conspiracy theory, it's basic common sense. Manipulation is rife on this show. They want to make money, they want to keep it dramatic and exciting, and they want to end up with the winner they feel will sell the most records. Those are their three main objectives, and the show is edited around achieving them.
Believe me, if the constesants stood there and sang each week, without the production values, the editing, the VTs and the biased judge's comments, I'd be first in line to agree with you that there's no manipulation. But that doesn't happen, because nobody would watch. The X Factor is essentially a soap, with the storylines written for the contestants and judges week on week. You only need to look at how easily they took Wagner out last week, and Jedward at the same point last year (ie. before the judge's save was dropped) to realise that.
Oh I don't disagree that there is a degree of manipulation when it comes to who is in the show in the first place and who is saved/sent home by the judges. This has always been the case. But even without that, Aiden would still be history.
As I said, he got worse every week, didn't get enough votes and gave the poorest sing-off performance.
Yes but in retrospect, without remembering where any of those songs were, the performances were still terrible.
This, I'm afraid is the painful truth!
Terrible to you, perhaps. Terrible to everyone? Probably not, don't you think?
Of course it's the truth - they agree with you.
Terrible to the people on this thread who thought they were terrible. The claim was that they only *thought* they were terrible because of his position in the show. I was just pointing out that this long after the actual show, the order they sang in doesn't matter.
I'm just discussing 'terrible' in the context it was presented here.
And so did the voting public.
I understand the Aiden debate I lie on the side he is terrible but now this thread has been hi-jacked by that waste again. Can we move on because Aiden fans will never agree he is just plain terrible.
You didn't really present this as your view on what was the worst of the series. You quoted a post in which I defended him (and which was not a response to people's views on this thread about his 'worst' performance, one of which I pointed out as my personal worst of the competition, but a response to a post in which researchshirley claimed he had deteriorated throughout the competition, and actually had no relevance to the original thread question.)
If you'd like to name which of Aiden's performances were bad, go ahead - I already have. If, however, you're going to quote my post and then make a sweeping generalisation, don't be surprised if I respond back.
If it was the case that all his performances were terrible, surely he'd have been voted out within the first couple of weeks? Are we to assume that all acts who have been voted out at Aiden's stage or earlier in the competition are terrible, or might we gather that, sometimes, there are other factors that influence this decision?
Yes but we are here to discuss are we not?
So ok - the fact that I think he was terrible is an opinon, granted. However, people seem intent on believing that he was out of the competition because he was cheated of something, rather than because he just wasn't popular enough.
Not really. He obviously he has some fans (many of you seem to be on this forum.) I can also see why some people went for him at first. He's not ugly and he seemed to be doing something different, although not to my taste.
He just didn't cut it in the long run, that's all.
Anyway - back to worse performances. I also thought Cher doing Hard Knock Life was fairly embarrassing.
Both of your responses to researchshirley basically flat out called her opinion wrong. You said:
Basically you're saying that researchshirely only thought the way she did because she had been manipulated by the show. That her opinion was wrong. Someone else then said that they didn't feel that the running order of the show affefcted how they felt about his performances. You then wrote a long post beggining:
basically saying that this person was wrong - that they thought Aiden was terrible because the judges wanted him to think Aiden was terrible.
The purpose of my post was simply to point out that it is very possible to go and watch these performances independently of each other, and still find them terrible regardless of the part of the show they were sung in.
You then accused me of stating my own opinion as fact, which is what you had spent the previous page of discussion doing yourself, and the page before that making excuses for Aiden (he was sad, he was emotional, etc). The entire point of my post was that you seem unable to accept that a lot of people didn't vote for Aiden simply because they thought he was crap.
I was referring to the same performances you were. I thought Aiden was great at the start and then got worse and worse as the show went on. However I felt he actually got worse whereas you think it's because he sung towards the beginning of the show.
Yes, sorry, as long as it stick closely to the thread I guess.
Wagner....
Oh, that's fair enough. I don't think you'll find many Aiden fans who believed he was going to win. Quite a few, however, believe that he was about as popular as some of the others that stayed in after him - Paije, Katie, Cher, Mary spring to mind - and that the voting figures, if they're released, will back this up in due course (if they don't, I'll admit I was wrong in this respect.)
What Aiden didn't get, however, was the same chance that acts like him, who typically don't do well in this type of contest, got. He wasn't saved when he should have been (and we can argue about this until we're blue in the face, because I accept that lots of people thought his sing-off was poor, but it was nowhere near as poor as Katie's the week before, and she was still saved despite that.) His comments from the judges on the week he left were deceptive, and he never got a later slot in the show after the first week. All of these things if reversed might have led people to believe that he was improving. He would almost certainly have benefited from the rebound vote the following week if he'd been saved by the judges.
And yeah, we've gone wildly off-topic now. So I'll add to my list of really bad performances: Matt's Bleeding Love was hugely frustrating and below his usual standard.
I totally agree
Where did I actually do this? Sorry if you got that impression. People present their opinions as facts on here all the time. As you've pointed out, I do it, and I'm sure you do too. It would be annoying if we had to begin every sentence with 'My personal opinion is'. That's obviously a given. But I don't think I've ever criticised someone else for doing it. If you're talking about the 'sweeping generalisation' part... that's not quite the same thing!
Katie - Sex on Fire
Cher - Hard Knock Life (soooooo original... yeah...)
Cher's Stay.
Wagner's Halloween Mash Up.
Rebecca's Yesterday and the massacre of the U2 song.