[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.