There's quite a big movement this year to prevent the X Factor winner from reaching the coveted Christmas number 1. It comes in the form of urging people to buy Rage Against the machine - Killing in the Name of.
Personally, I kinda support this action, as militant as it might be. Not because I dislike the X Factor (I don't often watch it) or the winner.
It's more becuase I don't like the knock on affect it has on the rest of the UK music industry. Putting karaoke singers on public trial for a few months is not the same as trialling musicians who can write, produce and perform their own music. For every X Factor winner out there, that's one other act that is displaced and less original talent that gets heard.
Maybe if the X Factor had shows where the 'candidates' are expected to write and produce their own music it might make a world of difference to the results......
I'm not saying that all X factor winners are creatively inept, but I've not seen much evidence to the contrary.
Apparently some 700000 Facebook group members think on similar lines. How about the PCA community?
Seeing Paul McCartney on the final show made me realise that if X Factor had been around in the 60's we probably would not have got The Beatles or The Rolling Stones. The whole set-up of X Factor seems to be intent on producing a 'Jack of all trades' rather than a 'Master of one'. Several of the competitors would fit quite happily into musical productions on stage but none of them seemed to have any intention, or were not allowed, to go near to the leading edge of modern music. Simon Cowell seems to have successfully dumbed music down unfortunately.
I'm not making an argument for liking the music. I'm saying that it prevents new music and talented musicians from reaching a mass audience.
As far as the X Factor goes, it only checks to see if the public might like the way they sing. Nothing else. This year with 'Jedward' is testament to that. It is however, a very well produced TV entertainment show.
I wasn't aware that 'Pavvi' was Paul Potts. Although i have a great deal of time for his voice (really), it doesn't change my argument for the X Factor, which is supposed to be about pop music.
How come we are never told the number of votes given for each artist?
"How come we are never told the number of votes given for each artist?"
No idea, does it bother you?
I meant, WHY does it bother you?
I don't really agree with you there. there's nothign to prevent anyone from applying to the X Factor, if they have the money to do so. But to get an audition you have to first show the producers that you are 'TV worthy' (and that could mean that you are a bloody awful singer), then you may get a shot.
That will only get you to the first stage auditions where Mr Cowell & Co will decide how marketable you are. Note that at no point has anyone's musical capability ever really tested.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'There is a vast range of other media they could perform on'.
If you want to find entertainers than Britains Got Talent is a good way forward. If you want to find people with musical credibility then the X Factor will get you nowhere.
We know singing ability is only part of it. We also know that this years intake have been worse than ever, and thats the real reason Mr Cowell is "threatening" to give it up. But there are sometimes some decent singers.
Personally i used to find the early audition round entertaining, but i didnt like them being in front of a studio audience. it changed the dynamic for me.
im not sure its valid to dismiss them as karaoke singers (what was with the mangling of the melodies of lots of songs this year? And i only saw 1 or 2 episodes). i mean, people have been doing covers since the year dot. i do follow the point that they dont play an instrument or write their own songs, so many think of them as brats who simply want to be famous.
However, there are a number of "credible" artists who dabbled in other arts before settling on music. Are they not the same? Just people who realise they have an artistic bent and who would quite like to make a living from art and be known for it?
I'm not sure the X Factor does prevent up and coming artists getting into the charts, and especially not to the top of the charts, and especially not at christmas. We have as a nation bought silly songs at christmas. id rather have the x factor winner than those 2 lads with their JCB song from a few years ago.
But during the rest of the year does it really make a difference? Havent tweenies and mums and grannies or whoever alwasy bought a certain kind of over-sold good looking pop star, from bross to new kids.. to take that to atomic kitten, to girls aloud, to...well...take that again? The point her isnt whether tehy write or play but the kind of music.
Many, alas, had hoped that downloads would make for more representative charts. What they have done, however (far as i can tell, i dont follow the charts that well), is make it easier for the usual record buying suspects to come out in force.
It would mildly amuse me if RATM won the race but i think they have already peaked too soon. And it doesnt really matter anyway.
P.S. didnt think much at all to what the runner up seemed to think was dancing. In fact, their stagegecraft was pretty bad all-round. maybe it should be a year long show and they should be taught how to not just stand there like a (rein)deer in the headlights...but that would involve the intention, by cowell and co, to produce long lasting acts...it isnt worth it for a flash in the pan, which most are.
are you sure babybell?
That's an interesting run down.
It does beg a question though (and would take a while to look up the answer). How many of the above people wrote and / or produced their own music? My guess would be that even for the 'survivors', very few tracks have been self wrote and produced. Karaoke singers and no more.
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.