Seeing a lot of references in the threads below to the popular Matthew Kelly singing show where normal members of the public get to dress up like their idols and sing karaoke on Saturday night TV. Obviously there's an (untelevised) audition process, so the standard of the series final is usually quite high, and the yearly winner gets the opportunity to do the rounds on daytime television before fading back into obscurity, probably attracting bigger crowds on the local pub scene, for a while.
Is this really any different to the X-factor? I ask because the Matthew Kelly show appears to be bandied around as a term of abuse, but surely there were there past winners who would have faired equally well on Simon Cowell's show. At least the earlier show was more humble about it all mostly being stars (rather than dollars) in their eyes, because the net outcome for the vast majority of the performers can hardly be very different across the two programs, even arguably for those with as much x-factor as Steve Brookstein or Michelle McManus, once a couple of years have expired. Why are people being so disparaging in their comparisons? I bet some x-factor contestants would have likewise struggled on Stars in their Eyes, and the contestants are probably drawn over the years from a broadly similar demographic. Stars in their Eyes probably has an inate talent advantage in that people are probably less scared to go on it, seeing it as a bit of fun rather than the possible ruination of their dreams and reputation - because lets be honest, its probably nerves that's held anyone back who's really got a god given talent but needs a TV talent contest to get noticed. It probably attracts fewer ****ers with an overblown sense of entitlement too.
Last edited by Blue Aardvark : 11-11-2006 at 21:15
Is this really any different to the X-factor? I ask because the Matthew Kelly show appears to be bandied around as a term of abuse, but surely there were there past winners who would have faired equally well on Simon Cowell's show. At least the earlier show was more humble about it all mostly being stars (rather than dollars) in their eyes, because the net outcome for the vast majority of the performers can hardly be very different across the two programs, even arguably for those with as much x-factor as Steve Brookstein or Michelle McManus, once a couple of years have expired. Why are people being so disparaging in their comparisons? I bet some x-factor contestants would have likewise struggled on Stars in their Eyes, and the contestants are probably drawn over the years from a broadly similar demographic. Stars in their Eyes probably has an inate talent advantage in that people are probably less scared to go on it, seeing it as a bit of fun rather than the possible ruination of their dreams and reputation - because lets be honest, its probably nerves that's held anyone back who's really got a god given talent but needs a TV talent contest to get noticed. It probably attracts fewer ****ers with an overblown sense of entitlement too.
Last edited by Blue Aardvark : 11-11-2006 at 21:15
