Am I the only person that thinks that BGT should be for non singing acts and The X Factor should be for singing acts?

Completely agree. It's frustrated me.

BGT is an easier process for them. Not so many rounds

Not since the biggest star to come from BGT is Susan Boyle, who would seem completely out of place on X-Factor.

I think the main problem is that the X-Factor's aim is to find a manufactured artist for the pop charts, something alot of singers would find too restricting.

Only 2 of the BGT winners have been singers, and they've been classical singers, so it's not like any act that absolutely should have been on X-Factor has taken the title.

Remember the idea of the show is to find an act that is suitable to perform at The Royal Variety performance, so there has to be singers in the competition as well. I doubt if the queen would want to watch dancers and comedians all evening.

No, singers should be allowed because there are many kinds of singers like operatic and child singers who would not be given a chance on XFactor. However the number of singers should be reduced because theres far too many at the moment.

I don't see why singers should be excluded, it's a talent show and that encompasses singers.

There's also numerous singers who would stand no chance on X Factor - including all of those under sixteen and groups like Only Boys Aloud.

And only one third of the final 45 acts are singers, so there is wide variation of everything else as well.

I don't think singers should be banned as, like others have said, they are looking for an act to perform at the RVP and anything after that is a bonus.

What they need to do is base the show around categories ie. singers, dancers, illusion, impressionist etc. After general auditions each live show would be acts of one category with the final containing 2 from each category. This would make it more interesting to watch as you won't get people complaining about overkill of certain acts and the final would be a true representation of a "variety" show.

I feel that I want to agree with Soapfan as it seems logical. However, what happens if one year they have lots and lots of really good dancers and all the impressionists lack talent of any kind? I like the idea of variety, but not at the expense of good talent.

I admit that singers/vocalists do seem to be over-represented in this show, but a good voice is still a talent after all; and it is one of the few talents that can be harnessed and perfected without any additional equipment or access to expensive training - meaning the opportunity is open to all.

Singers roll up because the standard of what is praised is very low and its easier to get through

Singers should be allowed but they should only put through the very best singers to the semi-finals

Who wants to watch 2 fat people dress up as Meatloaf and Cher or a Dutch lad play his mini keyboard?

Last years Royal Variety cast included...Robbie Williams, Neil Diamond, Kylie Minogue, Rod Stewart, Wand Erection, Andrea Bocelli, Katherine Jenkins, Girls Aloud...and the cast of Matilda ...the musical.

They are hardly seem desperate for singers such they need another....indeed I would think the Royal Family would welcome a bit of magic etc

Fact of the matter is "singers" provide Cowell with his long term (year or two) pay off from BGT....and so often the mask slips when he waxes about the people he thinks "will have a career" or "make a pop star"...what he really means is the acts he can make most money from or use to further the "Brand Cowell".

I can see your point but last night's show would have been disastrous without the two brothers and the young girl singer .

I wouldn't be against a Britain's Got Good Singers spin off though , I'd watch that and not bother with the main show .

its not all evening they only perform once for a couple of minutes

I agree in a way. I think if singing is part of a wider talent or a wider act (like Meat Diva who are really impersonators) then it's fine. But it is dull to see "serious" singers going through when there's the X Factor.

I definitely agree if you are a singing act then there should be a clear divide so you can either enter XF or BGT but not both.

Clearly Under 16s and (p)Opera acts are unsuitable for XF; so should be allowed on BGT. But thereafter it becomes a little unclear.

For example you could argue Lovable Rogues should have been on XF and not BGT; whilst a one trick pony XF act like Lucy Spraggan should have been on BGT and not XF.

Would it be better if the UK X F changed their rules again in line with the US version where the low age is 13 as this would allow some of those who choose BGT to enter XF freeing up the audition space for other acts?

Oh look it's another thread about how they should ban singers from BGT. :yawn:

It's called Britain's Got Talent, not Britain's Got Talent That Doesn't Involve Any Singing.

The singers have talent (well some of them do), so how can you possibly justify banning them?

They should put all the singers in one semi final together so we get a maximum of two in the final.

Judging by the quality of most of the singers then you probably already realise that there plenty of (unintentional) non-singing acts.

Where do all the opera/classical singers go then? And the younger ones?

I don't get the argument. "Singers should go on The X Factor..." They're 2 completely different shows. And besides if you use that argument for singers then surely the same should apply to dance groups. They can go on Got To Dance. I'm sure there is also a talent search for comedians too. As someone else has pointed out it's called Britain's Got Talent, that means anyone with any kind of talent can enter, not just the ones you deem suitable.

There isn't. ITV did do one in 2011 but it wasn't that popular.

Either way, BGT is currently the biggest platform in the UK for acts to make their mark.