[Jack_]

Originally Posted by GiRTh

Does making the headlines means they deserve to win a talent contest?

Yes. Because it's about who is the most commercially viable. Do you really see John selling loads of records or having a sell-out tour?

Cher, on the other hand...

[Smithy]

Originally Posted by Jack_

Yes. Because it's about who is the most commercially viable. Do you really see John selling loads of records or having a sell-out tour?

Cher, on the other hand...

Cher on the other hand would flop similar to Joe

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Smithy

Cher on the other hand would flop similar to Joe

Course she would...

Two female winners - the most successful. Four male winners - so far, only one has been successful. And then you add the fact that she has arguably been one of the most talked about and popular contestants this year. And that Tinie Tempah more or less said on Xtra Factor he would collaborate with her...and he has had a lot of chart success this year. Yeah, she'd really flop...

[Jords]

Originally Posted by Jack_

Yes. Because it's about who is the most commercially viable. Do you really see John selling loads of records or having a sell-out tour?

Cher, on the other hand...

The most talented should win a talent show. You should be looking at it like a viewer, your not Simon Cowell.

[Tom]

Mary also has the X Factor, so do Matt (even though I'm not so keen on him) and Rebecca

Cher is just a complete idiot and she makes me cringe

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Jords

The most talented should win a talent show. You should be looking at it like a viewer, your not Simon Cowell.

But talent in this show is not just vocal ability, it includes stage presence, personality, the 'look', the whole package, basically - hence the name 'X Factor'. I might not be Simon Cowell, but at the end of the day the show is looking for an artist that is commercially viable...and those are the ones that people should be supporting, really. What's the point in having a winner that will not have any success following the show whatsoever, but letting them win just because they are, supposedly the most 'talented'? We may as well not bother watching the show if the winner is definitely not going to go on to be successful...

[MeMyselfAndI]

Originally Posted by Jack_

But talent in this show is not just vocal ability, it includes stage presence, personality, the 'look', the whole package, basically - hence the name 'X Factor'. I might not be Simon Cowell, but at the end of the day the show is looking for an artist that is commercially viable...and those are the ones that people should be supporting, really. What's the point in having a winner that will not have any success following the show whatsoever, but letting them win just because they are, supposedly the most 'talented'? We may as well not bother watching the show if the winner is definitely not going to go on to be successful...

Well If we go by the most sucessfull one ever. Thats Leona she never had all this press and newspapers before, and look at her! This thread means nothing imo, it is a singing contest, and the best singers do the best, people dont listen to music because someone has a good personality, or because they enjoy reading about them. They listen to them to listen through an album. I mean who would want to listen to an Album by Katie Waissel? NO ONE

[Zippy]

Originally Posted by MeMyselfandI

..and the best singers do the best, people dont listen to music because someone has a good personality, or because they enjoy reading about them. They listen to them to listen through an album.

So Madonna, Britney and the Spice girls etc became global superstars because of their great voices?

No.

Music isn't all about great vocals. Its about the production and the delivery...and how its sold. It's a package deal.

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by Jack_

But talent in this show is not just vocal ability, it includes stage presence, personality, the 'look', the whole package, basically - hence the name 'X Factor'. I might not be Simon Cowell, but at the end of the day the show is looking for an artist that is commercially viable...and those are the ones that people should be supporting, really. What's the point in having a winner that will not have any success following the show whatsoever, but letting them win just because they are, supposedly the most 'talented'? We may as well not bother watching the show if the winner is definitely not going to go on to be successful...

If vocal ability comes so low down on your list of must haves then why bother having auditions?

[MeMyselfAndI]

Originally Posted by GiRTh

If vocal ability comes so low down on your list of must haves then why bother having auditions?

lol Vocal ability is the most important, I mean Leona, Alexandra and JLS have very good voices thats why they are sucessfull, Thats why Eoughan was not!

[Jords]

Originally Posted by Jack_

But talent in this show is not just vocal ability, it includes stage presence, personality, the 'look', the whole package, basically - hence the name 'X Factor'. I might not be Simon Cowell, but at the end of the day the show is looking for an artist that is commercially viable...and those are the ones that people should be supporting, really. What's the point in having a winner that will not have any success following the show whatsoever, but letting them win just because they are, supposedly the most 'talented'? We may as well not bother watching the show if the winner is definitely not going to go on to be successful...

Its people that think like this which is why artists who do not have much singing talent [e.g. Cheryl Cole, although she can put on a performance credit due] are so successful and sadly vice versa.

When it comes to an album, you dont hear personality, you dont hear stage presence, you dont hear somebody's appearance style, you hear their raw talent - if you have that your gonna sell none the less! Its those who dont have that big raw talent that rely so much on the other factors, which are important, but not close to vocal ability - you need to have them all for your career to work (if Cher was an ugly mess, dressed like a tramp and had her stinkin' attitude she'd go nowhere, and if she dressed like she does but was boring and said nothing, it would also not work). Oh, and autotune.

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Jords

Its people that think like this which is why artists who do not have much singing talent [e.g. Cheryl Cole, although she can put on a performance credit due] are so successful and sadly vice versa.

I'm not really a huge fan of Cheryl's musical career to be honest with you, but that's how the market works nowadays. People can moan all they want but that's the way it works and that's how we're all going to have to accept it.

Originally Posted by Jords

When it comes to an album, you dont hear personality, you dont hear stage presence, you dont hear somebody's appearance style, you hear their raw talent - if you have that your gonna sell none the less! Its those who dont have that big raw talent that rely so much on the other factors, which are important, but not close to vocal ability - you need to have them all for your career to work (if Cher was an ugly mess, dressed like a tramp and had her stinkin' attitude she'd go nowhere, and if she dressed like she does but was boring and said nothing, it would also not work). Oh, and autotune.

I don't really think that's always the case - Jedward can't sing for sh!t and they've been successful...

Quite a lot of fans of these people will just buy their albums/merchandise purely because they're a fan of their other work/qualities, regardless of whether they have vocal talent or not...

And I'm not disputing what you said about Cher, because it's the truth - but like I said that's the way the market works nowadays, like it or loathe it.

[Zippy]

Originally Posted by Jack_

Jedward can't sing for sh!t and they've been successful...

Not musically though. Huge flop.

They may be making money but its not from the one Top 10 hit.

[Zippy]

Originally Posted by Jords

The most talented should win a talent show. You should be looking at it like a viewer, your not Simon Cowell.

But talent isn't all about being blessed with a great voice. The best singers this year are not the best performers or biggest personalities. Having star quality and drawing peoples attention is a talent too. Personality can get you very far in the entertainment business.

[bbfan1991]

Originally Posted by Jords

The most talented should win a talent show. You should be looking at it like a viewer, your not Simon Cowell.

The producers and Cowell won't care about who is the most talented, all they want is someone who can make them lots of cash and they can promote.. think of it in a business sense which is why I don't take it seriously.

[Jords]

Originally Posted by bbfan1991

The producers and Cowell won't care about who is the most talented, all they want is someone who can make them lots of cash and they can promote.. think of it in a business sense which is why I don't take it seriously.

Yes but this doesnt mean we need to think of it like that!

[bbfan1991]

Originally Posted by Jords

Yes but this doesnt mean we need to think of it like that!

They're still managing to fool some but thankfully most people are realising what really goes on.

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by GiRTh

So you think its fixed? Given your thoughts then the auditions process is useless and this year it does seem like the judges have hand picked their fave without considering vocal ability.

No? When did I say it was fixed? I said there would be cries of fix if there wasn't an Audition process and the Judge's/producers just picked some peopple off of the street. That's not a fair competition. Auditions have to be held anyway or else where are they going to find people like Cher? And the Auditions is to most people [not me] the most popular part of the show, because you get the most entertainment out of it. So it's not entirely 'useless', it's just that they bore me after a while...

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by Jack_

Yes. Because it's about who is the most commercially viable. Do you really see John selling loads of records or having a sell-out tour?

Cher, on the other hand...

Susan Boyle would sell out more venues than Cher so what do you mean by 'commercially viable'?

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by GiRTh

Susan Boyle would sell out more venues than Cher so what do you mean by 'commercially viable'?

But Susan Boyle has outstanding vocal talent with the 'story' that backs it up [basically that she's an ugly oddball...]. That's why people were drawn to her on BGT and are still drawn to her. Because you wouldn't normally put the voice with someone like her...

Cher on the other hand appeals to young teenagers especially [the general mainstream music market nowadays] and would sell.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Jack_

Cher on the other hand appeals to young teenagers especially [the general mainstream music market nowadays] and would sell.

and when the younger audience get bored of her, pop goes her career. She can't reinvent herself because she just is one big gimmick with zero talent

[bbfan1991]

Originally Posted by Tom

and when the younger audience get bored of her, pop goes her career. She can't reinvent herself because she just is one big gimmick with zero talent

Maybe people would get bored with the others too?.

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by Jack_

But Susan Boyle has outstanding vocal talent with the 'story' that backs it up [basically that she's an ugly oddball...]. That's why people were drawn to her on BGT and are still drawn to her. Because you wouldn't normally put the voice with someone like her...

Cher on the other hand appeals to young teenagers especially [the general mainstream music market nowadays] and would sell.

Saying that then surely Mary is just as 'commercially viable'.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Jack_

Yes. Because it's about who is the most commercially viable. Do you really see John selling loads of records or having a sell-out tour?

Cher, on the other hand...

... wouldn't be able to sustain a career by herself with her own gimmicks. She might get big collaborations as you mention but theres no point being an artist if you have to ride on someone elses coattails

Cher has a disgusting attitude and a bad personality. She can't sing, she can't rap, she just plagarises everything and there is nothing unique or original about her whatsoever. I sometimes find it a bit uncomfortable when shes on stage, shes just a huge car crash

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by MeMyselfandI

Well If we go by the most sucessfull one ever. Thats Leona she never had all this press and newspapers before, and look at her! This thread means nothing imo, it is a singing contest, and the best singers do the best, people dont listen to music because someone has a good personality, or because they enjoy reading about them. They listen to them to listen through an album.

Lady Gaga is one of the most popular artists in the world right now...but are you really trying to suggest she has an amazing voice?

Leona, like Susan Boyle, has outstanding vocal talent and is a 'nice' person. That's why people are drawn to her.

I mean who would want to listen to an Album by Katie Waissel? NO ONE

Me...and her fans, so I guess you fail there, kid.

I see her as another Diana Vickers, really. And Diana Vickers is doing well, so...

Originally Posted by MeMyselfandI

Well leona hadsellout UK tour and fastest selling debut album ever, so whats stopping John if he has a good voice?

John doesn't have outstanding vocal talent like Leona though, he has a good voice but it's nowhere near outstanding and thus he'd need to be interesting to launch his career, but he's not, he's dull, doesn't draw the audience in [like Leona and Susan Boyle do through their outstanding vocal talent, and like Katie, Cher and Diana Vickers do because they're 'quirky' and 'different']. The chances of him having a sell-out tour or selling millions of records are extremely slim...

Originally Posted by Tom

... wouldn't be able to sustain a career by herself with her own gimmicks. She might get big collaborations as you mention but theres no point being an artist if you have to ride on someone elses coattails

I do think she could be successful by herself, if you ask me. Like I said, she has arguably been one of the most talked about/popular contestants this year...can't see why she would not have the support from her fans to sustain a career...

Cher has a disgusting attitude and a bad personality. She can't sing, she can't rap, she just plagarises everything and there is nothing unique or original about her whatsoever. I sometimes find it a bit uncomfortable when shes on stage, shes just a huge car crash[/QUOTE]

I think she's just...odd, myself. It comes across as arrogance but I really don't believe that's what it is. I think she's just a bit weird...

And there's nothing wrong with having confidence in your performances anyway. Robbie Williams is a cocky ***** [bad example, but is the only one I could think of off the top of my head], but it still worked for him.