did u read it!!
surely him sayin that smokin adds to a persons street cred is a character assessment.

And me as well.

I didn't say you did, I was answering a post to PIV.


I didn't say you did, I was comparing Rowetta's credibilty with that of Cassie's, with regards to time served and experience. I asked if that would make her a more worthy winner, I didn't say it would or wouldn't.



You were making a pretty strong case for it I thought.



Which is what I said too.




Yes you were making a case for Rowetta's credibility, and you went on to say :

What's fair or not depends on your priorities. Do you want someone who was inexperienced but not very good to win, because their entry complied with rule number: 163786?
(I made that rule up, just like TV shows do. )

I think if you look beyond what X Factor actually truthfully is as a concept, then experience and nurtured talent is irreplaceable, deserves recognition, and is probably more important as a means to what the program claims it sets out to acheive, than the programme is itself.

You could reword that above question to; "But is it fair if substance wins over style in this competition?"

Which to me came across as: (Rowetta's) 'experience and nurtured talent is irreplaceable and derserves recognition'. Is that not the same as derverving to win?

quite frankly rowetta rocks

No, experience and nurtured talent is irreplaceable and deseves recognition whoever it applies to. Not just Rowetta.

It may well apply to one or two others as well as Rowetta, and maybe they also deserve to be in the running. (In regards to the credibility aspect)

I was just stating my case for Rowetta in regards to being seen as a "credible artist". (Don't like saying that, I feel embarassed by repeating it now )

If you feel that someone else has what you'd call "credibilty", then I would like to see what criteria you use to quantify this overused term.
If you believe anyone else in the show has the makings of what you yourself could describe as a "credible artist"...feel free and post.

The first time she come on i sent for a engineer , I thought my speakers were knacked

...........

Gonna agree here with some of yers.. She is an average backing singer, with a big mouth, whose voice neither moves me or makes me wanna hear more.

Okay peeps lets get real and get it right then:

Meaning of this word

Credible: Capable of being belived - plausable

Worthy of Confidence - reliable.

If you think that sums up Rowetta then which planet you living on, as none of that sums her up for me. She is the most fake person I have ever seen on this type of show, she don't look or sound reliable when she says one sec, given up the fags, next she is trying hard to cut it out, not the same thing at all that. So I cant say I believe her, her false tears for her "baby" hell how old is this "baby" what crap.. and then 2 secs later no tears (well there never were any all an act) screaming wiv laffing wiv the VWS ladies.

Worthy of confidence, she dont give me any, reliable, I doubt it.

I would not buy this ladies songs, she had her craic and she blew it, on as someone says the cocaine and drink and Xtasy she shoved down her throat. And I am sure it will come out somewhere when the press get hold of the right person to spill the old beans.

Because of all the press coverage we can all comment far more on this chick than the others who have been clever and only want us to judge them on their songs!! Simple Simon was a nerd to let her in the press, people have gone right off her, she lost votes, I have chatted here and there and found out peeps who liked her dont no more.

On the others, credible: G4 were the first week, the second week no they were not plausable at all. But they have the training that takes years so they have the dedication as well.

Tabby: I think this lad is poss the most credible of the lot, he is what he is Tabby the rock kid. No frills, no lace, not lies, and knows what he wants. And of course he is Irish which helps.

Cassie: Credible, well she is very young to stick that label on to be honest, although I am sure she will be in time, she is a lovely chick, with a pure voice.

Steve: Credible, yes he is very and he has been doing this years and he has street cred, laid back, genunine, and I think he could have a huge record selling career as well.

I aint gonna comment on VWS as I aint keen on them so have not taken much notice, dont think they are credible to me.

2 to Go, lovely couple who I am sure are reliable, but plausable, in this industry in the year 2004, not sure about that at all.

So thems me thoughts.

Peppermint (Cream)

www.pop-idol-extra.co.uk

Credibilty to me, is more about authenticity above most other things.

Selling records, in itself, is not something I think is directly relevant.

Sustaining a career, isn't something I myself, associate with the term "credibilty".

You get loads of artists who are sustaining a career already, and many of them are what some would call disposable pop.

I'd put people such as "The Cheeky Girls", and "Westlife" at the lower end of the credibility scale,..and other people such as "Bjork", and "Oasis" somewhere at the higher end of the scale.
I suppose I could use different examples, but those are okay enough to use from the top of my head.

If somebody, in the past, was good enough to work with The "Happy Mondays", already they look a lot more credible than a lot of other people.

"Credibilty" to me, is more associated with "Authenticity".
Not to do with whether I think they can sustain a career(in itself).
To me, it's more about if what they perform has some kind of depth, or musical clout to it, rather than generic little mediocre pop jingles.

But I completely agree with you about assessments at this stage of the competition, it's very difficult to assess what kind of music any of these artists will produce in the future.
It's a very fair point. Because we have to consider that these shows like X Factor appear to be very narrow in their range of what these performers are allowed to sing on the show.
If they are forced to do pop covers on the show, then what has been done in the past is probably more relevant in indicating their abilities, what they are capable of acheiving, and how what they have produced before goes down with audiences beyond X Factor.
The X Factor audience is only represents a very narrow demographic.

Authenticity as in not a clone of someone else? If so as I said, that's hard to judge at this stage.

Selling records and sustaining a career is important though, particularly in the early years, otherwise you just drop out of the public's eyeline. If this happens it doesn't matter how credible or authentic you are, if you are not being seen and heard you no longer exist as an artist.




Non credible artists do sustain a short term careers certainly, but credible artists usually have a long term career, they either diversify to fit with the present time, or their work is simply timeless and always works.


But looking back and assessing someone's credibility by whom they have performed with only works for people of a certain age, how can someone still in their teens be expected to have that sort of credibility? To me they are still credible if they have the talent and the willingness to grow. If they can perform with some kind of depth when they are so young and inexperienced, they can only get better.


I can see what you are saying, although I still thinks it's a bit unfair on some of the acts. Steve, Rowetta and Tabby all have past experience in some way shape or form, but for me personally that doesn't make them any more credible than Cassie who at 17 is too young to have had that grounding.

At the end of the day I feel shows like XF are mainly a money machine. On a lesser scale they are a showcase for those that have worked for years, as well as those that are just talented but never been seen before. Win or lose it's a chance to be seen by those that may further your career.

I agree with much of your post Kewpee.

No, you can't expect to judge someone young and experienced by who they have worked with before.
That's part of what I mean,.....it's harder to judge. You just can't measure them on that basis yet.
Yes, they may well be credible, but at the moment there's not a lot to measure them with, we only have them performing covers for a primetime Saturday night audience to go by, which probably isn't the best benchmark of credibility for anyone.

It doesn't mean anyone who is young isn't credible as an artist,...of course not. It's just that there's not as much to measure them against.
But if someone has past experience of merit, that can be used to measure them to some extent.
It may not be fair, but it's just the way it is. The TV show may prevent them showing their true talent, due to the nature of the beast. It may hide what they are really capable of, for the sake of marketable TV for a specific kind of TV audience.

Contestants on these shows don't tend to have that "credibility" label after their respective shows end. They just seem to blend into the vast ocean of other generic, mundane pop acts.
But you can get a tiny exception to the rule, I suppose. Look at Lemar.

Obviously I'm only judging by what we know up until this point. Maybe the material Rowetta does after X Factor isn't so great. Hope it will, but it might not be.
And someone like Tabby, may be performing great material, and gain that kudos that earns him the tag of "credibility".




Is Tabby's real name "Trevor"?
Just that it seemed so when I read another thread.

Good job he isn't called "Rupert". Not good for credibility.

Yes it is Trevor, and Rupert wouldn't be so good, but then Reg Dwight made it, heck Marion Morrison was the most famous cowboy ever.

I hope they give Rowetta something different and better to perform. She is undoubtably talented but as yet has failed to move me.

Tabby suits him far better than Trevor does!

Please treat other forum members with respect.

Beth.

I don't understand the 'when the papers find out about her past' bit. Surely all they have to do is Google Rowetta and they will come up with all her Happy Monday's past - not exactly hidden away or the stuff of investigative journalism I wouldn't have thought.

And its a "no" from me too. She gets on my nerves!


Good job that Will was the twin with the talent then!

She wishes

She sings every song the same she has a voice good for session singing and backing artists but hse has no strong voice to stand out on her own

Some thought provoking posts here.

I think the word "credible" is problematic, it's like trying to work out if someone is "musical" or not. But, my take on it is that we can't really work out who is credible or not while they are part of this programme. Surely a lot of "credibility" comes from the choices an artist makes - what they sing, when they sing it, how they position themselves stylewise - and while they will always be helped along by producers, PR people and style gurus, the artists are less powerful on X Factor, particularly given the "Battle of the Judges". We don't know how happy Cassie is with singing the songs she has, or wearing a purple frock, we don't know whether G4 are inwardly cringing every week when they sing one of Louis' new arrangements. We don't know because all the participants will have us believe they are loving it and doing a great job because they want to win this competition. All they are actually doing is singing a 1 minute cover version of a song that has been selected for them by their judge and acting as though they think it's the best song ever written.

Credibility comes down to personality and the expression of that to other people. It's impossible to see it through a groomed performance that has so many limitations (despite the "no rules" policy). As for past experience, it may well play a part - it is more credible to have worked as a backing singer for a solid length of time than to have taken the Geri Halliwell Turkish game show approach to getting famous. But, I agree that it is unfair to say that Rowetta is more credible than Cassie because of her past, but then I think we're all agreed on that anyway. Ultimately, I don't think that it plays an important part either way, surely all of the contestants have shown a genuine passion for music and singing as far as we can tell, and there seems to be fewer fame whores in this contest than in previous series'. That can only be a good thing.