First of all - and most importantly - NOTHING about the X Factor has any relation in any shape or form to the term 'musical credibility'
The only person involved who admits this on a regular basis is Louis Walsh - for which he has my admiration. His non X-Factor interviews, if people took the time to read/watch them make it crystal clear that it's all a pantomime for which he is very well paid.
Originally Posted by scamrasc:
“i'm sorry but i HATE when people say this. simon, louis and sharon are all managers. they're not there as singers - that's not what they do, and it's not where they find their success. they are music industry executives whose job it is to find new artists to sign and help further a career (and make money). this makes them infinately more qualified to judge than any 'singer' could hope to be.
tulisa, along with every other judge aside from the 3 aformentioned, is there because she's a 'singer'. and no, cheryl and dannii couldn't sing either, and i didn't in all honesty particularly rate either of them as judges either, but that doesn't mean that because they were there in the past it's automatically fine to continue the trend!
that's the biggest problem with all these panels across all these shows. the men seem to generally be alright (as in your more likely to find someone with experience), but for women they go for a pretty face and celebrity power long before any actual talent spotting credentials. it's very annoying.”
This is the best post I've ever seen on the X Factor board.
Originally Posted by gav016:
“Tulisa was the one with the insight to create them, bring them through JH & week one, and selected some great songs for them, Tik Tok was a bit of a misstep I agree, but that theme was very much open for interpretation, and she took it one way whereas others took it another.Their Telephone performance was quite good, and actually Don't Let Go was Tulisa's suggestion. Ultimately though, the reason they won, aside from giving some of the best performances, was the way they were marketed to XF viewers, which is largely Tulisa's doing (they wont steal your boyfriends speech, her appearances in their VTs).
People are quick to dismiss the good and blame her for the bad. She's actually a much better judge than she's given credit for.”
No, Tulisa did not 'create' Little Mix. Tulisa read the script.
Originally Posted by Order:
“Well, I am.
Sharon has never had a #1.
Sharon cannot sing, as far as I'm aware.
Sharon was on the panel.
Tulisa has had a #1 and numerous chart hits.
Tulisa can sing, and has worked hard in the industry since the age of 11.
Tulisa is on the panel.
On paper, Tulisa is a much better choice. She's a much better choice than Dannii and Cheryl, too.
However, once they are sat in the seat, do they work? Personally, I don't think Tulisa works at all - but that reason isn't because she's only had one #1 or "can't sing" - the reason is because she doesn't 'entertain' me. Her comments are lackluster and she doesn't really have any rapport with the judges. I do like the fact that she cares for her acts though and tries her hardest to bring out the best in them.
Like I said, I'm very indifferent towards her and I do rate Dannii and Sharon as judges over her... but not because their any more credible than she is, but because they simply entertained me more than Tulisa does when they were on the show.
She might settle down a bit this year now her first year is over though, so we may see her shine.”
I totally disagree with the point you make in the first part of your post, and totally agree with the second half. She seems quite stupid, really. The lights are on, but there's no-one at home. She's also very common looking and has the fashion sense of Vicky Pollard.
Originally Posted by scamrasc:
“i'd just like to point out that Don't Let Go was kelly's suggestion. she'd been pushing for them to do En Vogue for weeks. she also wanted them to do something a cappella, which they then went on to do on xtra.
also, i don't believe for one nano second that it's the judges that make up the groups. the x factor has a team of producers heavily involved in the "talent scouting", and the fact that it happens every single god damn year should be some indication.
as for marketing, LM came across well because they were a group of 4 likable girls who seemed to have a good friendship. they also toured a LOT doing performances and building up a fanbase. tulisa's on show antics - including the "they won't steal your boyfriends" crap - was more annoying than anything else.”
You beat me to it. 'They won't steal your boyfriends' more or less sums up Little Mix's unfathomable appeal.
Originally Posted by Order:
“But you're completely missing the point I'm making.
The OP created this thread asking if Tulisa has a "right" to be on the panel - something which I think is more complicated than a straight "yes" or "no" answer.
If we're basing the decision on her career, then yes, she deserves her place. Her group worked hard to get where they are, and I suspect she knows A LOT more than Cheryl Cole who never had to work her way up like she did, but skipped a lot of the hard work by simply appearing on The Rivals.
Based on her achievements, she has a "right" to be there.
If we're basing the decision on her personality and entertaining the nation as a judge then the answer is no. Her comments are usually the normal standard rubbish we always hear.
Personally, I'd rather she wasn't on the panel because "achievements" do not make you a good judge, as I've just tried to explain.
However, I will always defend her when FMs create threads such as this because it's not her achievements we should be judging her on - it's her ability to judge that we should be judging.”
I really don't get this Tulisa worked hard malarkey. She sings (badly) in a shoite band and her uncle's recording studio played a significant part in their early 'struggle', as far as I'm aware.
Originally Posted by bluefb:
“What "roots", ffs?!”
Quite.
Originally Posted by bluefb:
“To people defending Tulisa's judging/mentoring credentials... do you honestly believe the judges are anything more than frontispieces for the show? The reason why the panel is comprised of flavour-of-the-week pop stars (plus an older, stabilising 'behind the scenes' face - Louis) is simply to appeal to the show's target demographics, nothing more. I'm sure these people have little to no executive creative input on which acts progress and how they're managed throughout the show. Insofar as they are pop puppets working to produce the next generation of pop puppet, the judges may have some incidental industry experience to contribute along the way, but that's not remotely why they're given the job in the first place. Get real, people.”
Another excellent post. Nevertheless, people who refuse to read or understand posts like this will almost certainly continue to argue 'but Louis never had a number one..............'
