Exactly. Aiden went home because he was appallingly bad and not the least bit entertaining. Now he's trying to ride along on the coat-tails of Matt's popularity.
Exactly. Aiden went home because he was appallingly bad and not the least bit entertaining. Now he's trying to ride along on the coat-tails of Matt's popularity.
Oh, hello, you made it over here! Just as well: this thread is lacking some much-needed comedic observations on the nature of Aiden's motives.
what part of the judges vote do people not understand??? it doesnt matter who had the lowest votes, thats the whole point of the sing off! so the judges can try and prevent an act they like going home if they have the lowest votes.
does it really matter? if you end up in the bottom 2 its extremely unlikely you will ever win anyway.
i for one like the sing-off, just because it actually gives the seperate results show abit more of a purpose!
and imo aiden was dreadful.
what part of the judges vote do people not understand??? it doesnt matter who had the lowest votes, thats the whole point of the sing off! so the judges can try and prevent an act they like going home if they have the lowest votes.
does it really matter? if you end up in the bottom 2 its extremely unlikely you will ever win anyway.
i for one like the sing-off, just because it actually gives the seperate results show abit more of a purpose!
and imo aiden was dreadful.
Another without the blinkers on I agree with everything you said
Personally I do think Aiden should have been saved for the reason most stated - ie Katie had been in the bottom 2 so often. In previous series Simon has said to a contestant that he liked, "I really like you, but this is the third time we've been here..." and sent them packing.
The point is that neither of them was likely to win, but it was blatantly obvious that Katie had no chance of turning her unpopularity around as she was so low so often. Aiden, on the other hand, was there for the first time and that means very little. You only have to look at JLS for proof of that.
Generally I get really frustrated when they go to the judges. Most often with Louis, but they are all guilty of this. They change the criteria to suit the outcome they want.
Either the sing off should be about only that, the performance given at the sing off. And sometimes that is what is said. But how many times have we heard "I'm going to save the act who has the most potential to grow in the competition" or "I'm going to save the act who has the most fight in them" or "I'm going to save this act because it is their last shot" etc?
Just have one criteria and stop changing it.
I'd say Danni is the most consistent at going with who was best in the sing off, but she switched that in Mary v Cher to the person that is 'fragile and moved me' or something similar.
When they get to the last judge and they start all their 'I don't know what to do, because I like both of you' nonsense, then it should just go to deadlock. If they thought one sang better, save that person. But do the same thing every week.
The main issue I've had this season has been that each section seemed pointless. Cher and Katie should never have gotten to the live show. Cher couldn't sing at judges house, so if they put her through anyway, what is the point of judges house? And Katie forgot the words twice, which I think is slightly easier to work around as you can still judge her singing even if the words are wrong.
Then in the live shows, the judges vote conditions changed every week. Cheryl was allowed not to vote, Louis saved Katie the first time as she had 'the most potential to improve', he sent Paige home even though he said he had supported him throughout, yet his vote would only have sent it to deadlock so would have been easy if he was as torn as he made out. Danni changed her criteria for Cher V Mary as I stated already, Simon just waffled and then kept in either his own act, Cher or Katie in each possible scenario.
Simon went on last year about how it doesn't matter to him (about the RATM song getting to number one) but it was Joe who suffered. He said a similar thing this year about keeping in Wagner. Yet he is willing to mess with other people's potential by sending them home early (and decreasing their exposure) ie Aiden, Paige, Storm, TrayC etc.
And as far as Katie is concerned, I actually quite liked her at the start (even though I though she should not have got past judges houses) but it was her needy, saying what she thought people wanted to hear as she hit the bottom 2 again and again that has really put me off her. So saving her so often, in my view, did her more harm than good and cost 2 or 3 others a better chance at a career.
Personally I do think Aiden should have been saved for the reason most stated - ie Katie had been in the bottom 2 so often. In previous series Simon has said to a contestant that he liked, "I really like you, but this is the third time we've been here..." and sent them packing.
The point is that neither of them was likely to win, but it was blatantly obvious that Katie had no chance of turning her unpopularity around as she was so low so often. Aiden, on the other hand, was there for the first time and that means very little. You only have to look at JLS for proof of that.
Generally I get really frustrated when they go to the judges. Most often with Louis, but they are all guilty of this. They change the criteria to suit the outcome they want.
Either the sing off should be about only that, the performance given at the sing off. And sometimes that is what is said. But how many times have we heard "I'm going to save the act who has the most potential to grow in the competition" or "I'm going to save the act who has the most fight in them" or "I'm going to save this act because it is their last shot" etc?
Just have one criteria and stop changing it.
I'd say Danni is the most consistent at going with who was best in the sing off, but she switched that in Mary v Cher to the person that is 'fragile and moved me' or something similar.
When they get to the last judge and they start all their 'I don't know what to do, because I like both of you' nonsense, then it should just go to deadlock. If they thought one sang better, save that person. But do the same thing every week.
The main issue I've had this season has been that each section seemed pointless. Cher and Katie should never have gotten to the live show. Cher couldn't sing at judges house, so if they put her through anyway, what is the point of judges house? And Katie forgot the words twice, which I think is slightly easier to work around as you can still judge her singing even if the words are wrong.
Then in the live shows, the judges vote conditions changed every week. Cheryl was allowed not to vote, Louis saved Katie the first time as she had 'the most potential to improve', he sent Paige home even though he said he had supported him throughout, yet his vote would only have sent it to deadlock so would have been easy if he was as torn as he made out. Danni changed her criteria for Cher V Mary as I stated already, Simon just waffled and then kept in either his own act, Cher or Katie in each possible scenario.
Simon went on last year about how it doesn't matter to him (about the RATM song getting to number one) but it was Joe who suffered. He said a similar thing this year about keeping in Wagner. Yet he is willing to mess with other people's potential by sending them home early (and decreasing their exposure) ie Aiden, Paige, Storm, TrayC etc.
And as far as Katie is concerned, I actually quite liked her at the start (even though I though she should not have got past judges houses) but it was her needy, saying what she thought people wanted to hear as she hit the bottom 2 again and again that has really put me off her. So saving her so often, in my view, did her more harm than good and cost 2 or 3 others a better chance at a career.
You also left out the fact that MARY forgot her vocals at Judge's House. Using your criteria, she shouldn't have been through to the live shows either.
The judges house is a moot point. Each has to pick 3 acts that they think will give them the best chance to win. I'd say by the time the even got to judges house, they had already made up their minds. Cher was probably #1 on Cheryl list, so it was obvious that she wasn't going to penalize her for being sick.
The criteria for who the judges pick during the sing off is pretty easy. "Who do I want to keep on the show?" For the same reason we like contestants because of their voice, performing, looks, dancing, style...whatever, the judges do the same. It's not like Aiden had universal appeal anyway. You see the comments here. My opinion was that he was the worst act on the live show. He looked more like a joke act than Diva Fever or Nicolo did (assuming both were brought on as comedic relief).
Simon liked Katie, Louis liked Aiden. Who are we to say either was wrong? Simple case of an unpopular singer with little potential in the judges eyes getting voted off by the public.
Well, considering Katie had already been in the bottom two three previous times, it was pretty bloody obvious that she had been lower than him for at least half the competition.
My 'logic' suggests that someone who had never seen the bottom two before, when another contestant had seen it three times, should have been given another chance to prove that they too could up their game, just as Katie was given many times. It didn't take a genius to work out that Aiden placed lower in deadlock than Katie. This is Simon's show; he knows how it works. Katie was on later, received some of the bounce back vote from being bottom two the week before, and hadn't been told in her comments from Simon that she'd be safe. Any casual observer would have worked out that Aiden was gone as soon as Simon voted for Katie to stay.
Aiden was actually one of the more versatile peformers in the contest: I really don't see how you could claim that Nothing Compares was similar to Diamonds Are Forever, was similar to Mad World etc (and that's not even taken into consideration his pre-live show performances.) All of the contestants stayed within their comfort zone to a certain extent but Aiden was the only one who I really felt was challenging himself with the songs he was singing.
one of the reasons katie rose in the votes -and not by that much i should add- is that she got the rebound vote, more than once.
aiden never had the benefit of that so there is no telling how high his voting percentages could have reached.
BUT... katie got the star treatment as someone mentioned before... this had a positive effect on her voting figures
She got a completely new look to make her look more sweet and vulnerable to the public rather then the desparate fame hungry twot she was... they worked more on her staging and everything...
If Aiden had gotten through, they wouldn't of given him this treatment im sure. They were totally ready to ditch Aiden. To alternative for the show and not grabbing enough headlines.
Similar to Cher, in my opinion this competition was too soon for Aiden. He is still working out what kind of performer he is and developing his musical identity. He was far too raw. Yes, he had some excellent moments, notably(in my opinion) Nothing Compares, but I found the majority of his performances a bit of a mess to be honest. I'm sure he'll have a promising future though.
This is true. Very very raw indeed. I could excuse some of his off-key moments though because when he was good he was incredible. If you listen to his performances, they arn't consistantly good through out, it goes bad then it goes amazing etc. I anticipated his performances every week, because I just wanted him to do a performance as amazing as mad world or this years love but he didnt. Im sure it was hard work choosing songs for him really. He could sing anything with little effort and it would still sound good, but he really tried to take it to new levels but sadly it just went bonkers alot of the time.
Simon himself predicted Aiden to win the competition at Bootcamp (along with Gamu) Presumably he saw something marketable and/or talented when he picked him, but the show failed to nurture that (and someone like Aiden, with zero industry experience, needed a lot of nurturing, the kind that Cher and 1D actually got.)
The main thing Katie had going for her was the obsessive gutter press turning her into a national hate figure. That in turn generated viewers. The facts speak for themselves: as I've said before, Aiden was expendable on the live shows but not for the tour. Why do you honestly think that was?
YES. Aiden went to out there, simon quickly lost interest... and I think if you study the live performances you can really see that they started to neglect Aiden at the end. Katie was given more singing time in virtually all the group performances to if you watch them.
YES. Aiden went to out there, simon quickly lost interest... and I think if you study the live performances you can really see that they started to neglect Aiden at the end. Katie was given more singing time in virtually all the group performances to if you watch them.
BS. Aiden had more solos in Forget You (Katie had one line I believe). He also had longer solos in Telephone.
The judges didn't universally send him through past Katie because they didn't think he was that good, and the public kicked him out of the competition for the same reason. As comforting as it may be to think there was some conspiracy theory at work, the simple fact is that he was an also-ran singer, had no chance of winning, and neither the judges nor the public fancied him. You don't see Diva Fever or Belle Amie fans bitching and moaning on here because they see the truth for what it is. It was his natural time to go...so buh-bye.
I don't understand why Simon didn't save Aiden, especially considering that he thought at the bootcamp stages that Aiden would WIN.
Ridiculous getting rid of a genuine talent like that just to keep tabloid fodder Katie in.
My Guess why Simon went cold on Aiden was because of Matt. Both Matt and Aiden were Gobby in putting their musical views forward in place of the shows entertainment agenda.
Matt and Aidan sided with each other in being vocal against songs, styling, their credibility...So, Simon decided to split them up. Matt was going to be the winner so he could hardly axe Matt.
If Matt wants to do well from Simon, maybe he needs to learn from Olly Murrs...smooze and affability get you further than being a Steve brookstein, demanding what he wants and being a pain in Simon bum.
The only thing Simon wants is easy money, so Matt make it easy for him or you may go the way of Aidan now the show is over.
My Guess why Simon went cold on Aiden was because of Matt. Both Matt and Aiden were Gobby in putting their musical views forward in place of the shows entertainment agenda.
Matt and Aidan sided with each other in being vocal against songs, styling, their credibility...So, Simon decided to split them up. Matt was going to be the winner so he could hardly axe Matt.
If Matt wants to do well from Simon, maybe he needs to learn from Olly Murrs...smooze and affability get you further than being a Steve brookstein, demanding what he wants and being a pain in Simon bum.
The only thing Simon wants is easy money, so Matt make it easy for him or you may go the way of Aidan now the show is over.
So many theories, yet the obvious "He didn't think he was worth keeping" is hardly mentioned :eek:
I'm pretty sure all the contestants, bar Rebecca, either fluctuated massively due to manipulation or had a fairly steady decline - even Matt (although he had a large enough lead in the first place that it didn't matter.)
If you look again, you'll see that Aiden was above Paije, Katie and Wagner in nearly every week other than the one he was voted off:
He wasn't steadily getting less popular than these three contestants, he dropped behind them in his last week due to a number of reasons largely beyond his control. I've already acknowledged on this thread that he was losing percentages week on week, but my argument is that he had further to go than Katie, and should have been saved by Simon as a result.
If I've interepreted anything incorrectly here, please let me know. But don't skew the results to suit your own argument.
Is this a wind up? How is stating that Aiden got less popular week on week, and Katie got more popular week on week until she overtook him, "skewing the results"? All I'm doing is repeating the results that you posted.
What you said - "he had further to go than Katie, and should have been saved by Simon as a result." is literally 100% your opinion and has no bearing on any of the statistics you posted. They have no connection whatsoever. He got less votes as a % of the total every week except one, where they raised slightly.
If you want me to give my interpretation of the results, or to put it another way, do what you did and state my opinion and call it fact because somewhere in my post there is a graph (even if it has nothing to do with my argument), I can - Aiden would have gone much earlier had he not given an absolutely brilliant performance with 'Mad World'. People continued to vote for him in the hopes that he would match that performance, but as he failed to do so every week, his support gradually dropped away until he reached the bottom 2. It was at this point it became clear that he was not going to repeat the greatness of Mad World, and for this reason, as well as receiving the fewest votes out of all the contestants that week and with no sign of his downward spiral of popularity reversing, the judges decided to send him home.
To explain why he didn't get 'another chance' the way Katie did - the judges didn't feel he would improve, and they said so. They felt Katie would. And the fans agreed, as shown by the voting patterns.
Your entire argument is hinged on the idea that Aiden should not have gone because he got more votes than Katie in previous weeks. Well yes, he did, because in previous weeks he gave better performances. These performances got worse as the weeks progressed, therefore he received a lower % of the votes.
Every post you have made contains an excuse for Aiden. You keep saying 'proof', yet all you provide are conspiracy theories and conjecture. And you say 'if no-one has anything useful to add, I'm off'. I assume by 'useful to add' you mean 'agree with everything I say'.
Is this a wind up? How is stating that Aiden got less popular week on week, and Katie got more popular week on week until she overtook him, "skewing the results"? All I'm doing is repeating the results that you posted.
What you said - "he had further to go than Katie, and should have been saved by Simon as a result." is literally 100% your opinion and has no bearing on any of the statistics you posted. They have no connection whatsoever. He got less votes as a % of the total every week except one, where they raised slightly.
If you want me to give my interpretation of the results, or to put it another way, do what you did and state my opinion and call it fact because somewhere in my post there is a graph (even if it has nothing to do with my argument), I can - Aiden would have gone much earlier had he not given an absolutely brilliant performance with 'Mad World'. People continued to vote for him in the hopes that he would match that performance, but as he failed to do so every week, his support gradually dropped away until he reached the bottom 2. It was at this point it became clear that he was not going to repeat the greatness of Mad World, and for this reason, as well as receiving the fewest votes out of all the contestants that week and with no sign of his downward spiral of popularity reversing, the judges decided to send him home.
To explain why he didn't get 'another chance' the way Katie did - the judges didn't feel he would improve, and they said so. They felt Katie would. And the fans agreed, as shown by the voting patterns.
Your entire argument is hinged on the idea that Aiden should not have gone because he got more votes than Katie in previous weeks. Well yes, he did, because in previous weeks he gave better performances. These performances got worse as the weeks progressed, therefore he received a lower % of the votes.
Every post you have made contains an excuse for Aiden. You keep saying 'proof', yet all you provide are conspiracy theories and conjecture. And you say 'if no-one has anything useful to add, I'm off'. I assume by 'useful to add' you mean 'agree with everything I say'.
It's not rocket science.
Sir, I would like to present you with a medal... Brilliantly put
Exactly. Aiden went home because he was appallingly bad and not the least bit entertaining. Now he's trying to ride along on the coat-tails of Matt's popularity.
its his best mate fgs..if publicity was all he was after he'd be touting 1D:yawn:
theywere all jumping on Matt they do it to the winner every year
Aiden done a good job with Mad World, but that was it. He peaked too early and done exactly the same thing week after week (just like most of them to be fair). He would never have got much further even if he was saved.
They got rid of him because Katie was bringing much more attention to the show. They (the producers) knew he was bottom so they purposefully went to deadlock to avoid claims of favouritism.
Is this a wind up? How is stating that Aiden got less popular week on week, and Katie got more popular week on week until she overtook him, "skewing the results"? All I'm doing is repeating the results that you posted.
What you said - "he had further to go than Katie, and should have been saved by Simon as a result." is literally 100% your opinion and has no bearing on any of the statistics you posted. They have no connection whatsoever. He got less votes as a % of the total every week except one, where they raised slightly.
If you want me to give my interpretation of the results, or to put it another way, do what you did and state my opinion and call it fact because somewhere in my post there is a graph (even if it has nothing to do with my argument), I can - Aiden would have gone much earlier had he not given an absolutely brilliant performance with 'Mad World'. People continued to vote for him in the hopes that he would match that performance, but as he failed to do so every week, his support gradually dropped away until he reached the bottom 2. It was at this point it became clear that he was not going to repeat the greatness of Mad World, and for this reason, as well as receiving the fewest votes out of all the contestants that week and with no sign of his downward spiral of popularity reversing, the judges decided to send him home.
To explain why he didn't get 'another chance' the way Katie did - the judges didn't feel he would improve, and they said so. They felt Katie would. And the fans agreed, as shown by the voting patterns.
Your entire argument is hinged on the idea that Aiden should not have gone because he got more votes than Katie in previous weeks. Well yes, he did, because in previous weeks he gave better performances. These performances got worse as the weeks progressed, therefore he received a lower % of the votes.
Every post you have made contains an excuse for Aiden. You keep saying 'proof', yet all you provide are conspiracy theories and conjecture. And you say 'if no-one has anything useful to add, I'm off'. I assume by 'useful to add' you mean 'agree with everything I say'.
It's not rocket science.
Okay, first of all, I don't keep saying proof, so can we not blatantly lie to make your argument sound stronger. I've said it in the title of this thread, which I didn't give much thought (does anyone?) but the OPINION remains (and that is basically all anything is on here, with maybe a few statistics to back it up): the judge's vote was hideously manipulated this year to keep certain contestants in and send certain contestants home and I know I'm not the only one, Aiden fan or not, to believe this.
I also said 'proof' again in reply to what someone else had asked me. So, a grand total of three times, I think.
Now, moving on, I think both of us are guilty of looking at the statistics and interpreting them in the way that we like, but my main one here was factually true: Aiden was beating Katie every week until he was sent home, and one of yours here is factually true: Aiden's figures were dropping week on week (already acknowledged by me) and one is basically false: Katie wasn't improving week on week, but saw several dips and several rises, all fairly gradual until Beatles week (but then very steeply downwards after that), and (MY OPINION IS STARTING NOW) all down to the fact that the public didn't really care much about her but her performance slots and exposure on the show were doing some of the work for her.
I don't think it's also opinion to state that had Aiden stayed for another week, he would have seen his votes rise, just as Katie had. Possibly not so dramatically, as that is based on other factors, but looking at the pattern of bottom two vs next week voting statistics, it may well have been that people would have decided that he had in fact 'more to give'.
My 'I'm out' response was in relation to the fact that I was repeating the same points I've repeated many times in defence of Aiden, in response to the same points I've heard many times in response to Aiden. You, at least, are giving me something a bit more interesting to discuss.
I don't think it's also opinion to state that had Aiden stayed for another week, he would have seen his votes rise, just as Katie had. Possibly not so dramatically, as that is based on other factors, but looking at the pattern of bottom two vs next week voting statistics, it may well have been that people would have decided that he had in fact 'more to give'.
My 'I'm out' response was in relation to the fact that I was repeating the same points I've repeated many times in defence of Aiden, in response to the same points I've heard many times in response to Aiden. You, at least, are giving me something a bit more interesting to discuss.
That is an opinion. There's no proof for this, you're wallowing now in counterfactual evidence, the "What If's". e.g. "what if hitler had won WW2" etc. There is absolutley NO evidence to suggest whatsoever that Aiden would have seen his votes rise, as has already been pointed out by VoiceofTreason and many others, his popularity was waning week by week, this to me suggests he was losing support funnily enough.
At the end of the day, this argument is getting really pointless... Aiden lost, hopefully this might be the last we see of him as I found him almost as entertaining as Rebecca, whom i found dull to the point of self harm.
Let's quit with the "what if's" of what would've happened had he got through. Let's quit with the conspiracy theories with virtually no evidence to back them up. Let's just sit back and enjoy the best winner's single to date, in the knowledge that the best singer won.
As major conspiracy theories go, this is not a particularly interesting one - Aiden never go above 5th or 6th place in any week, and his suppost was on the wane anyway, particularly as 'other factors' such as the Wagner protest vote gained momentum. He had, as you say, a couple of weeks left at max, so the argument you have is how much it matters to get dumped out of a competition you;re never going to win a couple of weeks before many people think you 'should have done'. In my opinion in going early, he had a chance to build on the sympathy a lot of people have for the one contestant every year who goes that bit early as a result of an apathy among their fans in one given week.... he failed to take that opportunity as a result of his sullen , dog in a manger attitude in his post elimination appearances - had he been a little more gracious, i reckon he could have got a minor career on the back of being 'the one who got the push from X Factor when he shouldn't have, but was cool about it'.
Aiden done a good job with Mad World, but that was it. He peaked too early and done exactly the same thing week after week (just like most of them to be fair). He would never have got much further even if he was saved.
They got rid of him because Katie was bringing much more attention to the show. They (the producers) knew he was bottom so they purposefully went to deadlock to avoid claims of favouritism.
I agree with this.
It's hard for the powers that be to deny this, as it was the only time that the judges sent to to deadlock when Katie was in the bottom 2.
BUT... katie got the star treatment as someone mentioned before... this had a positive effect on her voting figures
She got a completely new look to make her look more sweet and vulnerable to the public rather then the desparate fame hungry twot she was... they worked more on her staging and everything...
If Aiden had gotten through, they wouldn't of given him this treatment im sure. They were totally ready to ditch Aiden. To alternative for the show and not grabbing enough headlines.
not disagreeing with that. imo they wanted to make aiden this year's "shock exit". there is one every year around that time, this year it was aiden..gets people voting more these shock exits.;)
As major conspiracy theories go, this is not a particularly interesting one - Aiden never go above 5th or 6th place in any week, and his suppost was on the wane anyway, particularly as 'other factors' such as the Wagner protest vote gained momentum. He had, as you say, a couple of weeks left at max, so the argument you have is how much it matters to get dumped out of a competition you;re never going to win a couple of weeks before many people think you 'should have done'. In my opinion in going early, he had a chance to build on the sympathy a lot of people have for the one contestant every year who goes that bit early as a result of an apathy among their fans in one given week.... he failed to take that opportunity as a result of his sullen , dog in a manger attitude in his post elimination appearances - had he been a little more gracious, i reckon he could have got a minor career on the back of being 'the one who got the push from X Factor when he shouldn't have, but was cool about it'.
Don't let Elly see this.... she'll go mad at you for "using the same old arguments about aiden" lol.
But yeah he could've, but public opinion of him must've slumped dramatically after his bad sportsmanship
Don't let Elly see this.... she'll go mad at you for "using the same old arguments about aiden" lol.
But yeah he could've, but public opinion of him must've slumped dramatically after his bad sportsmanship
Can you not resort to inaccuracies about me unless you've got evidence to back up your claim that I'll "go mad" at someone for using different opinions to myself? It really isn't necessary. We're all on here to discuss the X Factor, at the end of the day, and whilst sometimes I might write things that come across badly in the distance from one screen to the next, I don't think you can accuse me of being a particularly over-emotional poster. Perhaps you've misunderstood the tone of my posts or perhaps you dislike it when people challenge your opinion. I don't know.
On topic (well, not really, but on topic for X Factor): How do you know that public opinon of Aiden has slumped dramatically? The papers the next day were pretty much full of dissent that Aiden had gone and Katie had stayed. The whole "Have a beer" comment, apart from criticisms from a reactionary minority, was generally seen as disappointment and teenage ineloquence. And he hasn't been short of work since he's left, possibly suggesting that public opinion of him is generally quite good. If you want I can list a few examples of what he's done since leaving, if you're genuinely interested in this subject?
I'll also factor in his reaction to Matt winning on Sunday: hardly "bad sportsmanship", was it?
You'll notice I'm not really talking about the original post anymore. I've said my points, and others have said theirs. For the interests of not going back and forth, I'm willing to conceed that Aiden leaving, and the figures surrounding his placing in the votes, wasn't proof postive that the judge's vote had failed, but, for me and some others, a pretty clear indication that the goalposts for the judge's save had changed this year, perhaps to the detriment of certain viewer's trust in the show.
Comments
Exactly. Aiden went home because he was appallingly bad and not the least bit entertaining. Now he's trying to ride along on the coat-tails of Matt's popularity.
Oh, hello, you made it over here! Just as well: this thread is lacking some much-needed comedic observations on the nature of Aiden's motives.
does it really matter? if you end up in the bottom 2 its extremely unlikely you will ever win anyway.
i for one like the sing-off, just because it actually gives the seperate results show abit more of a purpose!
and imo aiden was dreadful.
Another without the blinkers on
The point is that neither of them was likely to win, but it was blatantly obvious that Katie had no chance of turning her unpopularity around as she was so low so often. Aiden, on the other hand, was there for the first time and that means very little. You only have to look at JLS for proof of that.
Generally I get really frustrated when they go to the judges. Most often with Louis, but they are all guilty of this. They change the criteria to suit the outcome they want.
Either the sing off should be about only that, the performance given at the sing off. And sometimes that is what is said. But how many times have we heard "I'm going to save the act who has the most potential to grow in the competition" or "I'm going to save the act who has the most fight in them" or "I'm going to save this act because it is their last shot" etc?
Just have one criteria and stop changing it.
I'd say Danni is the most consistent at going with who was best in the sing off, but she switched that in Mary v Cher to the person that is 'fragile and moved me' or something similar.
When they get to the last judge and they start all their 'I don't know what to do, because I like both of you' nonsense, then it should just go to deadlock. If they thought one sang better, save that person. But do the same thing every week.
The main issue I've had this season has been that each section seemed pointless. Cher and Katie should never have gotten to the live show. Cher couldn't sing at judges house, so if they put her through anyway, what is the point of judges house? And Katie forgot the words twice, which I think is slightly easier to work around as you can still judge her singing even if the words are wrong.
Then in the live shows, the judges vote conditions changed every week. Cheryl was allowed not to vote, Louis saved Katie the first time as she had 'the most potential to improve', he sent Paige home even though he said he had supported him throughout, yet his vote would only have sent it to deadlock so would have been easy if he was as torn as he made out. Danni changed her criteria for Cher V Mary as I stated already, Simon just waffled and then kept in either his own act, Cher or Katie in each possible scenario.
Simon went on last year about how it doesn't matter to him (about the RATM song getting to number one) but it was Joe who suffered. He said a similar thing this year about keeping in Wagner. Yet he is willing to mess with other people's potential by sending them home early (and decreasing their exposure) ie Aiden, Paige, Storm, TrayC etc.
And as far as Katie is concerned, I actually quite liked her at the start (even though I though she should not have got past judges houses) but it was her needy, saying what she thought people wanted to hear as she hit the bottom 2 again and again that has really put me off her. So saving her so often, in my view, did her more harm than good and cost 2 or 3 others a better chance at a career.
You also left out the fact that MARY forgot her vocals at Judge's House. Using your criteria, she shouldn't have been through to the live shows either.
The judges house is a moot point. Each has to pick 3 acts that they think will give them the best chance to win. I'd say by the time the even got to judges house, they had already made up their minds. Cher was probably #1 on Cheryl list, so it was obvious that she wasn't going to penalize her for being sick.
The criteria for who the judges pick during the sing off is pretty easy. "Who do I want to keep on the show?" For the same reason we like contestants because of their voice, performing, looks, dancing, style...whatever, the judges do the same. It's not like Aiden had universal appeal anyway. You see the comments here. My opinion was that he was the worst act on the live show. He looked more like a joke act than Diva Fever or Nicolo did (assuming both were brought on as comedic relief).
Simon liked Katie, Louis liked Aiden. Who are we to say either was wrong? Simple case of an unpopular singer with little potential in the judges eyes getting voted off by the public.
Agree completely. Great post.
BUT... katie got the star treatment as someone mentioned before... this had a positive effect on her voting figures
She got a completely new look to make her look more sweet and vulnerable to the public rather then the desparate fame hungry twot she was... they worked more on her staging and everything...
If Aiden had gotten through, they wouldn't of given him this treatment im sure. They were totally ready to ditch Aiden. To alternative for the show and not grabbing enough headlines.
This is true. Very very raw indeed. I could excuse some of his off-key moments though because when he was good he was incredible. If you listen to his performances, they arn't consistantly good through out, it goes bad then it goes amazing etc. I anticipated his performances every week, because I just wanted him to do a performance as amazing as mad world or this years love but he didnt. Im sure it was hard work choosing songs for him really. He could sing anything with little effort and it would still sound good, but he really tried to take it to new levels but sadly it just went bonkers alot of the time.
YES. Aiden went to out there, simon quickly lost interest... and I think if you study the live performances you can really see that they started to neglect Aiden at the end. Katie was given more singing time in virtually all the group performances to if you watch them.
BS. Aiden had more solos in Forget You (Katie had one line I believe). He also had longer solos in Telephone.
The judges didn't universally send him through past Katie because they didn't think he was that good, and the public kicked him out of the competition for the same reason. As comforting as it may be to think there was some conspiracy theory at work, the simple fact is that he was an also-ran singer, had no chance of winning, and neither the judges nor the public fancied him. You don't see Diva Fever or Belle Amie fans bitching and moaning on here because they see the truth for what it is. It was his natural time to go...so buh-bye.
My Guess why Simon went cold on Aiden was because of Matt. Both Matt and Aiden were Gobby in putting their musical views forward in place of the shows entertainment agenda.
Matt and Aidan sided with each other in being vocal against songs, styling, their credibility...So, Simon decided to split them up. Matt was going to be the winner so he could hardly axe Matt.
If Matt wants to do well from Simon, maybe he needs to learn from Olly Murrs...smooze and affability get you further than being a Steve brookstein, demanding what he wants and being a pain in Simon bum.
The only thing Simon wants is easy money, so Matt make it easy for him or you may go the way of Aidan now the show is over.
So many theories, yet the obvious "He didn't think he was worth keeping" is hardly mentioned :eek:
Is this a wind up? How is stating that Aiden got less popular week on week, and Katie got more popular week on week until she overtook him, "skewing the results"? All I'm doing is repeating the results that you posted.
What you said - "he had further to go than Katie, and should have been saved by Simon as a result." is literally 100% your opinion and has no bearing on any of the statistics you posted. They have no connection whatsoever. He got less votes as a % of the total every week except one, where they raised slightly.
If you want me to give my interpretation of the results, or to put it another way, do what you did and state my opinion and call it fact because somewhere in my post there is a graph (even if it has nothing to do with my argument), I can - Aiden would have gone much earlier had he not given an absolutely brilliant performance with 'Mad World'. People continued to vote for him in the hopes that he would match that performance, but as he failed to do so every week, his support gradually dropped away until he reached the bottom 2. It was at this point it became clear that he was not going to repeat the greatness of Mad World, and for this reason, as well as receiving the fewest votes out of all the contestants that week and with no sign of his downward spiral of popularity reversing, the judges decided to send him home.
To explain why he didn't get 'another chance' the way Katie did - the judges didn't feel he would improve, and they said so. They felt Katie would. And the fans agreed, as shown by the voting patterns.
Your entire argument is hinged on the idea that Aiden should not have gone because he got more votes than Katie in previous weeks. Well yes, he did, because in previous weeks he gave better performances. These performances got worse as the weeks progressed, therefore he received a lower % of the votes.
Every post you have made contains an excuse for Aiden. You keep saying 'proof', yet all you provide are conspiracy theories and conjecture. And you say 'if no-one has anything useful to add, I'm off'. I assume by 'useful to add' you mean 'agree with everything I say'.
It's not rocket science.
Sir, I would like to present you with a medal... Brilliantly put
its his best mate fgs..if publicity was all he was after he'd be touting 1D:yawn:
theywere all jumping on Matt they do it to the winner every year
They got rid of him because Katie was bringing much more attention to the show. They (the producers) knew he was bottom so they purposefully went to deadlock to avoid claims of favouritism.
Okay, first of all, I don't keep saying proof, so can we not blatantly lie to make your argument sound stronger. I've said it in the title of this thread, which I didn't give much thought (does anyone?) but the OPINION remains (and that is basically all anything is on here, with maybe a few statistics to back it up): the judge's vote was hideously manipulated this year to keep certain contestants in and send certain contestants home and I know I'm not the only one, Aiden fan or not, to believe this.
I also said 'proof' again in reply to what someone else had asked me. So, a grand total of three times, I think.
Now, moving on, I think both of us are guilty of looking at the statistics and interpreting them in the way that we like, but my main one here was factually true: Aiden was beating Katie every week until he was sent home, and one of yours here is factually true: Aiden's figures were dropping week on week (already acknowledged by me) and one is basically false: Katie wasn't improving week on week, but saw several dips and several rises, all fairly gradual until Beatles week (but then very steeply downwards after that), and (MY OPINION IS STARTING NOW) all down to the fact that the public didn't really care much about her but her performance slots and exposure on the show were doing some of the work for her.
I don't think it's also opinion to state that had Aiden stayed for another week, he would have seen his votes rise, just as Katie had. Possibly not so dramatically, as that is based on other factors, but looking at the pattern of bottom two vs next week voting statistics, it may well have been that people would have decided that he had in fact 'more to give'.
My 'I'm out' response was in relation to the fact that I was repeating the same points I've repeated many times in defence of Aiden, in response to the same points I've heard many times in response to Aiden. You, at least, are giving me something a bit more interesting to discuss.
That is an opinion. There's no proof for this, you're wallowing now in counterfactual evidence, the "What If's". e.g. "what if hitler had won WW2" etc. There is absolutley NO evidence to suggest whatsoever that Aiden would have seen his votes rise, as has already been pointed out by VoiceofTreason and many others, his popularity was waning week by week, this to me suggests he was losing support funnily enough.
At the end of the day, this argument is getting really pointless... Aiden lost, hopefully this might be the last we see of him as I found him almost as entertaining as Rebecca, whom i found dull to the point of self harm.
Let's quit with the "what if's" of what would've happened had he got through. Let's quit with the conspiracy theories with virtually no evidence to back them up. Let's just sit back and enjoy the best winner's single to date, in the knowledge that the best singer won.
I agree with this.
It's hard for the powers that be to deny this, as it was the only time that the judges sent to to deadlock when Katie was in the bottom 2.
not disagreeing with that. imo they wanted to make aiden this year's "shock exit". there is one every year around that time, this year it was aiden..gets people voting more these shock exits.;)
Don't let Elly see this.... she'll go mad at you for "using the same old arguments about aiden" lol.
But yeah he could've, but public opinion of him must've slumped dramatically after his bad sportsmanship
Can you not resort to inaccuracies about me unless you've got evidence to back up your claim that I'll "go mad" at someone for using different opinions to myself? It really isn't necessary. We're all on here to discuss the X Factor, at the end of the day, and whilst sometimes I might write things that come across badly in the distance from one screen to the next, I don't think you can accuse me of being a particularly over-emotional poster. Perhaps you've misunderstood the tone of my posts or perhaps you dislike it when people challenge your opinion. I don't know.
On topic (well, not really, but on topic for X Factor): How do you know that public opinon of Aiden has slumped dramatically? The papers the next day were pretty much full of dissent that Aiden had gone and Katie had stayed. The whole "Have a beer" comment, apart from criticisms from a reactionary minority, was generally seen as disappointment and teenage ineloquence. And he hasn't been short of work since he's left, possibly suggesting that public opinion of him is generally quite good. If you want I can list a few examples of what he's done since leaving, if you're genuinely interested in this subject?
I'll also factor in his reaction to Matt winning on Sunday: hardly "bad sportsmanship", was it?
You'll notice I'm not really talking about the original post anymore. I've said my points, and others have said theirs. For the interests of not going back and forth, I'm willing to conceed that Aiden leaving, and the figures surrounding his placing in the votes, wasn't proof postive that the judge's vote had failed, but, for me and some others, a pretty clear indication that the goalposts for the judge's save had changed this year, perhaps to the detriment of certain viewer's trust in the show.