|
||||||||
The X-Factor - Talent Contest or Reality Show? |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 8,590
|
The X-Factor - Talent Contest or Reality Show?
Hi,
I'm a bit confused about something. Two points I've seen a lot of people make in this forum seem to be 1. Daniel shouldn't be in the show. Yes, he is likeable and has a good backstory, but he's not talented. 2. Rachel shouldn't be on the show. She maybe able to sing, but she's not likeable and her past rules her out. Isn't this completely contradictory? If Daniel's past and likeability are irrelevent given that he can't sing too well, surely Rachel's past and unlikeability should be just as irrelevent given that she can sing, and of course if Rachel should be ruled out, then Daniel's lack of talent shouldn't stop him from winning? So what should the X-Factor be, a reality show or a talent show? Should we vote according to who we think is the most talented, or who we think is the most likeable? Personally, I'm on the side of the talent show primarily because of two reasons. As a reality show the X-Factor sucks, we see more of the judges than we do the performers. I'm a huge BB fan and am perfectly aware that given how little we see of the performers no viewer could ever get anything but a shallow understanding of the personalitys. Second, for me musical talent is something to be appreciated in and of itself. Having had a discussion with another FM who stated that they would never buy a record from someone who's personality they didn't like and who they didn't think was physically attractive, I think the idea of musical talent as a good in and of itself may not be as common as I had thought. For me, I couldn't care less whether someone is likeable or attractive, if they sound good they sound good. I'm not going to chat with them in the pub or sleep with them, I'm going to listen to them. So how do you watch the X-Factor, as a reality show where you pick the most likeable of the performers, or as a talent show where the most talented gets your vote? And is the tension between these two quite different criterias why we end up with quite bland, albeit likeable, winners who can sing a bit, but aren't that great, and who rarely achieve much afterwards? If the Devil has all the best music, is likeability a harmful criteria for a singing contest |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 638
|
Quote:
Hi,
I'm a bit confused about something. Two points I've seen a lot of people make in this forum seem to be 1. Daniel shouldn't be in the show. Yes, he is likeable and has a good backstory, but he's not talented. 2. Rachel shouldn't be on the show. She maybe able to sing, but she's not likeable and her past rules her out. Isn't this completely contradictory? If Daniel's past and likeability are irrelevent given that he can't sing too well, surely Rachel's past and unlikeability should be just as irrelevent given that she can sing, and of course if Rachel should be ruled out, then Daniel's lack of talent shouldn't stop him from winning? So what should the X-Factor be, a reality show or a talent show? Should we vote according to who we think is the most talented, or who we think is the most likeable? Personally, I'm on the side of the talent show primarily because of two reasons. As a reality show the X-Factor sucks, we see more of the judges than we do the performers. I'm a huge BB fan and am perfectly aware that given how little we see of the performers no viewer could ever get anything but a shallow understanding of the personalitys. Second, for me musical talent is something to be appreciated in and of itself. Having had a discussion with another FM who stated that they would never buy a record from someone who's personality they didn't like and who they didn't think was physically attractive, I think the idea of musical talent as a good in and of itself may not be as common as I had thought. For me, I couldn't care less whether someone is likeable or attractive, if they sound good they sound good. I'm not going to chat with them in the pub or sleep with them, I'm going to listen to them. So how do you watch the X-Factor, as a reality show where you pick the most likeable of the performers, or as a talent show where the most talented gets your vote? And is the tension between these two quite different criterias why we end up with quite bland, albeit likeable, winners who can sing a bit, but aren't that great, and who rarely achieve much afterwards? If the Devil has all the best music, is likeability a harmful criteria for a singing contest |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 20,184
|
It's a reality talent show.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,395
|
Rachel on the show is simply a joke. She is not just awful but she's a thug
x-factor is not a rehab for druggies |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Posts: n/a
|
Reality talent show
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 39,237
|
Quote:
Rachel on the show is simply a joke. She is not just awful but she's a thug
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 30,110
|
At it's most basic, it is an entertainment show. At least that is what ITV call it.
It takes various bits and pieces from different genres. The auditions and boot camp follow some aspects of reality television and are also a talent search. The live shows are the typical "shiny floor show" and their main aim is still to entertain. But ultimately, they need to have some element of talent to go along with the reality. Hence why we don't have 12 Daniels. |
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
At it's most basic, it is an entertainment show. At least that is what ITV call it.
It takes various bits and pieces from different genres. The auditions and boot camp follow some aspects of reality television and are also a talent search. The live shows are the typical "shiny floor show" and their main aim is still to entertain. But ultimately, they need to have some element of talent to go along with the reality. Hence why we don't have 12 Daniels. |
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 8,590
|
Quote:
It's a reality talent show. The idea is to find a singer who can become a good recording artist. Public vote is based on talent and likeability and that will never change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Huddersfield
Posts: 1,453
|
X-Factor voters vote far too much on the back of likeability. Hence Javine, a far superior singer to any member of Girls Aloud, never made it into the main group. Likewise Brenda who was dismissed in favour of Shane Ward and Andy Williams or Beverly who lost to Leon and Rhydian. Rachel will be robbed this year like they were.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 12,467
|
Excellent post OP and I agree with everything you say.
For me it's about talent and who I find the best or most affecting singer. Most of those who appear on the show are pretty mediocre IMO and so I like to see talent (if there is any ) prevail.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Lancashire
Posts: 550
|
It's an unreality show. Everything is fabricated and the only purpose is delivering the adverts to the correct demographic and making Simon a quick buck.
It's certainly not about vocal talent or creativity. Even the best winner of all the series was a simple copyist of better-known American talents' tricks. If born earlier, she'd have been pushed as an impersonator (like Faith Brown) rather than hyped as an Artiste in her own right. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 18:39.


) prevail.