Originally Posted by Unigal07:
“You don't need to be a singer to appreciate a singer's performance. Why do singers always feel like their opinion is more valid when judging performances? We can all hear and judge, thank you very much.
As for saying Sophie had nothing to lose - Danielle may have been the bookies favourite but Sophie has loads of fans, and many thought she may have won. Both had equal pressure - the role of their lives at the end of the competition. Both wanted it. Both deserved it. Why does Danielle escape all possible constructive criticism because she was the bookies favourite? She'll be on a west end stage 8 times a week, THAT'S pressure! Surely if she can't handle the bookies, she can't handle the West End?
Your argument just didn't make any sense at all.”
Nothing at all wrong with my arguments, thank you very much.
When you stand up and sing in public competition, your nerves can kick in at any time; that's when the bum notes come! As a singer, I just know why that is. Any non-singer could work it out if they too have been in competitions that depend on physical skill.
Danielle gave 100% in two rousing final songs, then had to gather herself together for a much quieter song, the most crucial song of her young life. Of course she was nervous, so probably not perfect!.
Danielle won according to the rules of the competition, which is that she got the most viewers' votes. End of story.
If those votes had gone to Sophie, what's the betting that people would now be pulling her performance to pieces too?
Sophie hasn't got the "Dorothy" role, but with the right support and the right agent, she may well end end up with a more glittering West End career than Danielle. After all, the "Oz" musical is hardly "Phantom".