[Smithy]

Originally Posted by Jack_

No it isn't, it never has been and it never will be. It's not called 'X Factor' for nothing. 'X' meaning a combination of different things that make up a commercially viable act. If it was called the 'Singing Factor' then fair enough, but it's not. It has and never will be just about the singing. It's about vocal ability, stage presence, personality, the 'look' etc. For example, Jedward ticked the stage presence and personality [although that's debatable] boxes, but their vocal talent was awful. On the other end of the spectrum we have Rachel Adedeji, for example, who had the vocal talent but had no stage presence, no personality, the wrong look etc.

At the end of the day you can have the best vocal talent in the world, but if you're dull as ***** chances are you're not going to have a sell-out tour, are you? There's exceptions of course but on the whole to be commercially viable you have to tick all of those boxes. Cher and Katie tick most, although some could admittedly be improved, Keri and Gamu only tick one...possibly two.

The X Factor is a British television singing competition contested by aspiring singers drawn from public auditions

The X Factor is a television talent show franchise originating in the United Kingdom, where it was devised as a replacement for Pop Idol. It is a singing competition

Just like American Idol, X Factor is a singing competition. Unlike American Idol, it's a singing competition for different age groups.

The British show X Factor, set to launch in the U.S. next year, is improving the performance of vocalists in a singing competition.

It is a singing competition, it always has been it always will be the list of things you mentioned are absent from pretty much all winners bar maybe one or two. They all had good voices, because it is a singing competition.

You can argue your point all you want but it's a singing competition, and both Cher and Katie shouldn't have gotten through.