[the truth]

Originally Posted by 08marsh

It's news to you that celebrities receive these vast sums of money for relatively very little work?

Lopez can't sing or act yet gets paid to release music and act in movies.
You're saying Willoughby can't present a TV show and gets paid as a presenter, so yes it is comparable.

Willoughby isn't hired as a music professional, that's not her purpose.
Just as the narrator of The Apprentice most likely knows bugger all about business, but that's not his purpose.

They are there to relay voting/contestant information to the audience. The music schtick is for the judges.

she not only fails and has zero knowledge of anything, in which case her skill/talent is not specialised at all..whereas the talent of the coaches is specialised and proven ..they could get 10001 people to read off the dummy cards, so her fee is simply unjustifiable on every level....on top of that she cannot even do the basics of a presenters job which is to not just read off autocue but to interact, to converse and listen...instead she simply talks over people....she simply lacks any skill or talent and doesn't even have the basic social skills to interact with people....reggie is vastly better...yet is hidden away back stage and paid a tiny fraction....he actually has a sense of humour and some personality....holly is simply useless....they could get anyone better at a snip of her fat salary

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by the truth

she not only fails and has zero knowledge of anything, in which case her skill/talent is not specialised at all..whereas the talent of the coaches is specialised and proven ..they could get 10001 people to read off the dummy cards, so her fee is simply unjustifiable on every level....on top of that she cannot even do the basics of a presenters job which is to not just read off autocue but to interact, to converse and listen...instead she simply talks over people....she simply lacks any skill or talent and doesn't even have the basic social skills to interact with people....reggie is vastly better...yet is hidden away back stage and paid a tiny fraction....he actually has a sense of humour and some personality....holly is simply useless....they could get anyone better at a snip of her fat salary

Which has what to do with her knowledge of music?

It's a glorified karaoke session.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by 08marsh

Which has what to do with her knowledge of music?

It's a glorified karaoke session.

so you think its worth all this money to pay a talentless bimbo a fortune to present a so called karaoke session?

I think the quality of singers is better than karaoke singers

why do you ignore all other points? if it was your show, called the voice, about the voice, would you pay someone with zero music knowledge or experience at all, with zero personality, no discernible talent, poor social and listening skills, £420,000 to read a few corny lines off dummy cards and talk over everyone else in a monotone voice?

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by the truth

so you think its worth all this money to pay a talentless bimbo a fortune to present a so called karaoke session?

I think the quality of singers is better than karaoke singers

why do you ignore all other points? if it was your show, called the voice, about the voice, would you pay someone with zero music knowledge or experience at all, with zero personality, no discernible talent, poor social and listening skills, £420,000 to read a few corny lines off dummy cards and talk over everyone else in a monotone voice?

I never said she was worth the money, as I said I think these celebs in general earn way too much money regardless of their level of talent.

I never ignored your points, I addressed them in several previous posts, you seem to be ignoring those.

If it was my show I wouldn't care about the music knowledge of the presenter because all they need is to look good and have good presenting skills, the music expertise should come from the judges. The presenters aren't there to critique and assess.

You could stick Paul McCartney as the presenter of the show and his musical expertise would mean diddly squat in a presenter role.

[Stevep]

Originally Posted by the truth

why do you ignore all other points? if it was your show, called the voice, about the voice, would you pay someone with zero music knowledge or experience at all, with zero personality, no discernible talent, poor social and listening skills, £420,000 to read a few corny lines off dummy cards and talk over everyone else in a monotone voice?

She isn't there to add her expertise in the field of music, she is not a critic ,she is there to present and nothing more. If you have a problem with her presenting style, which you obviously do, then fine have a go, but her musical knowledge shouldn't really come into it. Out of interest do you have a problem with Reggie? He seems to add nothing in terms of critique even though he has a music backround.

And tbf, what sort of music knowledge are you after? You don't have to be an expert in the field to notice who has a decent voice and who doesn't, distinguishing the good from the bad is a pretty basic talent in regards to music, everybody has the ability to do so. As long as you are not a teenybopper that is more interested in looks than talent you're fine in recognizing talent.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Stevep

She isn't there to add her expertise in the field of music, she is not a critic ,she is there to present and nothing more. If you have a problem with her presenting style, which you obviously do, then fine have a go, but her musical knowledge shouldn't really come into it. Out of interest do you have a problem with Reggie? He seems to add nothing in terms of critique even though he has a music backround.

And tbf, what sort of music knowledge are you after? You don't have to be an expert in the field to notice who has a decent voice and who doesn't, distinguishing the good from the bad is a pretty basic talent in regards to music, everybody has the ability to do so. As long as you are not a teenybopper that is more interested in looks than talent you're fine in recognizing talent.

And even so, as presenter, Holly is supposed to be impartial, she's certainly not there to analyse the contestants performances

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

And even so, as presenter, Holly is supposed to be impartial, she's certainly not there to analyse the contestants performances

then why doesn't she shut up and allow the music lovers and experts to talk?

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by the truth

then why doesn't she shut up and allow the music lovers and experts to talk?

As Marsh already pointed out, she's probably being told to hurry them up, that's usually what happens when presenters talk over the judges in shows like this, Dermot does it all the time on X Factor

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Stevep

She isn't there to add her expertise in the field of music, she is not a critic ,she is there to present and nothing more. If you have a problem with her presenting style, which you obviously do, then fine have a go, but her musical knowledge shouldn't really come into it. Out of interest do you have a problem with Reggie? He seems to add nothing in terms of critique even though he has a music backround.

And tbf, what sort of music knowledge are you after? You don't have to be an expert in the field to notice who has a decent voice and who doesn't, distinguishing the good from the bad is a pretty basic talent in regards to music, everybody has the ability to do so. As long as you are not a teenybopper that is more interested in looks than talent you're fine in recognizing talent.

she is utterly useless in every aspect of her job....she doesn't even admire to be remotely sincere when she says woodenly how amazing each performance was....I doubt shes even a music lover....her total lack of passion for anything but self publicity , her vapid personality and dreadful listening/communication skills are embarrassing to behold....she is simply awful as a host for this show

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by the truth

her total lack of passion for anything but self publicityw

How would you know this? Fair enough evaluate her presenting skills but to make these presumptions is a bit uncalled for.

Her career relies on being on TV, so she's going to be on TV. She wouldn't be a TV presenter without it.

In regards to the music, if you want deep musical understanding and knowledge then a Saturday night talent show is not the place to find it. Even Tom Jones struggles to say anything outside of standard talent show cliches.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by 08marsh

How would you know this? Fair enough evaluate her presenting skills but to make these presumptions is a bit uncalled for.

Her career relies on being on TV, so she's going to be on TV. She wouldn't be a TV presenter without it.

In regards to the music, if you want deep musical understanding and knowledge then a Saturday night talent show is not the place to find it. Even Tom Jones struggles to say anything outside of standard talent show cliches.

again I disagree
Tom speaks when he needs to and wants to...he knows what hes talking about and he is sincere...he doesn't simply talk for the sake of it
I didn't say deep musical understanding did I? did I ask her to be George martin? nope... why exaggerate my points and twist my words? Totally unnecessary and a tad disingenuous
I would like a presenter with a modicum of talent, personality, passion for music and yes at least some knowledge of the subject and even basic communication skills? for £28,000 an episode Id want this.