[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!

[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

[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.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Jack_

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...

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.

Confidence or even arrogance isn't bad imo, its just her whole manner (the so called "swagger" )

You're right to say she is one of the most talked about contestants, but its noy mainly for the right reasons. Most people can't stand her and negativity doesn't sell records

She may have initial support from her fans but once the X Factor bubble bursts, thats it, you're on your own. If you've not got any talent to back it up (which she doesn't) then fans will desert you in droves

Originally Posted by Jack_

Is that not the same for most mainstream artists nowadays though? Lots of artists come and go...

She'd have 2-3 years maximum and thats being generous. Thats hardly a successful career really. She has to survive without X Factor next year- something previous contestants have been able to capitalise on and its probably not going to happen

[Zippy]

I can't see any act this year being a big success tbh. I can see Cher having a couple of hits if she hooks up with the right producers(Tinie, call me) but I certainly don't see her selling out concerts n shyt.

Katie? Hmm if she found the right material maybe but the odds are against. Its cutthroat out there for female singers at the moment. Just tons of competition.

[MeMyselfAndI]

Well Leona is the X Factor. She wasnt making newspapers and stuff..
and i am sure she will be more sucessfull than cher and katie.
you are totally wrong. Its the best singers that will do the best and crack worldwide.. hence leona

[MeMyselfAndI]

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

[MeMyselfAndI]

I think the best possible winner would be Matt Cardle, he would be the most sucessfull, with Cher a close 2nd, then One Direction, Then TreyC and Aiden. Everyone else would be a HUGE flop

[MeMyselfAndI]

Gamu woud of been the biggest hit <3

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by GiRTh

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

Because that's how the show works, and there would be screams of 'fix' etc if the producers just hand picked who they wanted. And how are they supposed to find anyone if they don't hold Auditions in the first place? The Auditions are always my least favourite part of the show anyway...

Originally Posted by Tom

and when the younger audience get bored of her, pop goes her career.

Is that not the same for most mainstream artists nowadays though? Lots of artists come and go...

Originally Posted by GiRTh

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

For the Susan Boyle market, yes.

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by Jack_

Because that's how the show works, and there would be screams of 'fix' etc if the producers just hand picked who they wanted. And how are they supposed to find anyone if they don't hold Auditions in the first place? The Auditions are always my least favourite part of the show anyway...

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.

[Jords]

Anyway, I do get the appeal of Cher but Im just arguing the case that her and Katie are NOT the only ones to have The friggin' X Factor.

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Jords

Anyway, I do get the appeal of Cher but Im just arguing the case that her and Katie are NOT the only ones to have The friggin' X Factor.

I think the only other one that has it is Matt, I could see him being another Shayne. Possibly One Direction tapping into the JLS market...

And then to a lesser extent Rebecca, and TreyC [same market as Alexandra, really]. Oh, and maybe Aiden.

[MTVN]

The X Factor is not just about finding the person who is techinically the best singer. It's about finding the next big artist, finding someone who could succeed in the music industry.

And to do that you need looks, a prominent personality, originality, you need someone who people want to talk about, someone making headlines. Cher is doing that without a doubt. Of course, you need to have a good voice as well, but you need so much more than that, and that is why John could never win.

[bbfan1991]

Originally Posted by MTVN

The X Factor is not just about finding the person who is techinically the best singer. It's about finding the next big artist, finding someone who could succeed in the music industry.

And to do that you need looks, a prominent personality, originality, you need someone who people want to talk about, someone making headlines. Cher is doing that without a doubt. Of course, you need to have a good voice as well, but you need so much more than that, and that is why John could never win.

I don't mind people criticising Cher about her personality or performances because obviously on here we all have different opinions and like different acts but i've noticed in general some of the critics of her and Katie do go on as if they've committed a crime sometimes.. I just see it as a Saturday night entertainment show and if some want to take it seriously fair enough, but theres no need to go OTT when theres other things more important out there.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by MTVN

The X Factor is not just about finding the person who is techinically the best singer. It's about finding the next big artist, finding someone who could succeed in the music industry.

And to do that you need looks, a prominent personality, originality, you need someone who people want to talk about, someone making headlines. Cher is doing that without a doubt. Of course, you need to have a good voice as well, but you need so much more than that, and that is why John could never win.

The X Factor is first and foremost an entertainment show and its mainly used to promote the winners single and any other Sony artists releasing singles towards the end of the year. Any careers that comes once the series is over is just a bonus. Noone actually cares for the acts once they've left the competition or once the series is over, just like Big Brother

Don't be fooled into thinking its a genuine talent competition, its not

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Tom

The X Factor is first and foremost an entertainment show and its mainly used to promote the winners single and any other Sony artists releasing singles towards the end of the year. Any careers that comes once the series is over is just a bonus. Noone actually cares for the acts once they've left the competition or once the series is over, just like Big Brother

Don't be fooled into thinking its a genuine talent competition, its not

I agree, it is an entertainment show. But what they want out of a winner is someone who can succeed in the music industry, they don't really care that much about finding the best singer imo.

[Zippy]

Originally Posted by Jords

Anyway, I do get the appeal of Cher but Im just arguing the case that her and Katie are NOT the only ones to have The friggin' X Factor.

I think they are in the sense that their talent is not as obvious. Its something that draws people but hard to pinpoint why.

The ones with great voices have their only real talent out there on show. Thats their appeal and we get it.

[fruit_cake]

I think Matt, Aiden and Rebecca are the only ones with X-factor.. I don't really understand the idea of 'groups' it always seemed to me that 5 rubbish singers don't make one good singer.. but I suppose a good group is more about image than singing ability so one direction are a good group and so are belle amie IMO

[_Seth]

They're both annoying little sluts with bad attitudes.