It makes sense. A good comparison is one that one of the judges made when saying that Edith's treatment of the song reminded him(?) of Carole King (who wrote it), then saying something similar about her earlier two songs.

However, I heard Edith's "Natural Woman" again today when Colin played it on Radio 1, and it didn't seem as impressive as it did last night. In any case, she's reproducing what someone else has done. That makes her a good karaoke singer; some of the others may have more natural, though as yet less developed, talent.

Also, I don't think her singing has improved; it's just that this song let her do some things that the others didn't.

Edith's now a front runner, but why? The winner shouldn't be someone who was the best, or nearly, at the start. It should be someone who develops over the course of the show and surprises us with that change.

Unfortunately, the public is voting out the people who could do that, and the students are too with that cop-out and cowardly "based on tonight's performance".

Edith is very good at interpreting songs - yesterdays song sung to a piano in the morning was stunning.

Not sure about tonights song. People who sing with meaning don't have as much chance to shine when their song has practically no lyrics - its like giving Alex Heart of Glass in FA2. This one didn't even have room to add much embellishment either. She gets to show she can do something very different though, so it may be a positive.

For some reason Kim, Deborah and Dawn have all got deep emotional songs which give them more to play with. Kim is doing hers very well.

You don't win by going from awful to bad. Edith has developed as much as Kim, Dawn and Deborah who are the main competition with Ade. They've all tried new genres and so far Edith has had less problems. If you watch the lessons on livestreaming its Edith experimenting with new things - some of which admittedly didn't make it into the show -and Kim being as inventive but drawing on an awful lot of existing knowledge,

What on earth else could the student's vote on other than "I like him/her more". You can't judge potential if you are a student and you certainly can't reward progress -you just get silly results. Konnie went from stunningly dreadful to only 70% awful which was the biggest leap anyone made last night.

I Agree ,

I fear Edith's song is quite bland by comparison tonight,
I misssed her performance rehearsal with Kevin so i don't know if they have come up with anything to make it interesting.

That is, hardly at all.

No one should win by going from good to a bit better. There's no interesting story in that, and it's supposed to be a school. If I want to hear someone sing "Natural Woman" well, I can listen to Carole King.

We'll see if anything inventive comes through on the main show. Otherwise, I hope Kim wipes the floor with her.

If the students can't judge potential, why believe they can judge the quality of "tonight's performance"? If they're just going to reward the people who already seem best, they shouldn't be voting at all.

Saving people at random would probably be better than what's happening now. And if any more of them try that "tonight's performance" cop-out, I'm going to start throwing things.

As for rewarding progress, I don't agree that the results would be "silly". Indeed, I think the show should be about progress, potential, and change; not complacent congratulation.

Which is one reason I wanted her to stay. Konnie might have made this a memorable show.

Yes but the difference between what Kim, Dawn, Ade Deborah can achieve and what Gina, John, Reggie and Reggie could achieve is far too great. The first 4 came in as very good singers and may go out as "a bit better singers" For the last 4 getting to the stage where the audience no longer hit the mute button is a far greater achievement. I don't want to spend 9 more days hitting the mute button though and a final with 3 people who still can't sing isn't going to have many viewers.

Of course "based on tonights performance" means a scientific "I liked it more"or, at best, "there was less wrong with that one". The virtue is the public can agree or disagree with the benefit of hearing the same song. The alternatives just sound untenable and the public has no idea whats true as they mostly only see the sBBC1 show. "He is working harder, improving more, was a lot worse last time, is getting better" - and similar arguments are all subjective, unknowable or unknowable from a student perspective of the other students. They also come down to "that sounded better, he's a threat and must go, I like her, she has nice eyes, I saw him working hard yesterday" or similar judgements anyway. There is no better way other than to let the teachers judge potential because they have the experience and know the students. Do that and you just get complaints about biased judges from the fans of people who got thrown out.

I don't think any of them are worth listening to as singers. If I want to hear good singing, there are plenty of ways to hear better singing than that. I have no interest in anyone's progress from good to slightly better.

If that's all the show can be about, because anything else would have the audience "hitting the mute button", then it should not exist at all.

Ade is one of the few reasons I still bother watching, but that's because he has an entertainingly quirky take on the songs; his development as a singer is secondary. If all he offered was possible progress from good to slightly better, he'd be nothing.

Kim is interesting chiefly because the judges and audience don't see to like her very much. Also, she didn't resort to "tonight's performance" last night, and she might save us from the increasingly predictable triumph of Edith. She's a potential hero.

I don't think that Gina, John, or Reggie are likely to do anything interesting, though that wouldn't make them any worse than Dawn. [I'm not sure who you had at No. 4, because you typed "Reggie" twice..]

Nick, on the other hand shows some potential, and he's another who didn't take the coward's way out in the vote last night.

It's a way for them to avoid offending anyone or seeming biased. it lets the likes of Edith avoid offering any interesting opinion at all.

These people are supposed to be entertaining us. They should come up with something worth hearing. Their alternative to "tonight's p." doesn't have to be anything as bland as "He is working harder, improving more, was a lot worse last time, is getting better".

Come on! It's not even a real opinion! They never say why "tonight's perf" makes someone worth keeping. What about that performance made the difference? There's nothing there! And the public can and will agree or disagree with whatever they say.

'I don't think any of them are worth listening to as singers. If I want to hear good singing, there are plenty of ways to hear better singing than that.'

isnt some of the point of comic relief, that singing is also about being entertaining.
I think Ade and Edith are both entertaining as singers, which is why I like watching them, and they are my favourites.
Although Debra and Kim could be better singers technically, they are not as entertaining as others, which could be why they are less popular.

Ade's very entertaining. I like Edith a lot but she's nowhere near as entertaining as Ade. Hell he even plays the guitar brilliantly.