Really, what does it matter if Mel B “steals” a singer?
Are we here to find the best singers, or to "beat" a fellow judge?
- Published by David Knox
- on
- Filed under News
“Adam if you don’t give her a seat, 100% Mel will pick her up,” Guy Sebastian pleaded with Adam Lambert.
Last night Lambert was mulling whether or not to give a talented young singer one of his Final 3 places.
“Dude, please don’t give her to Mel!” Sebastian insisted.
Lambert, playing along with the show’s conceit, kept viewers hanging while a studio audience was goading him on.
What I was foolishly waiting for was for Lambert to say “That would be great if Mel picks her up because then we’ll have a really strong show and we will be helping her career.”
But it was not to be.
Alas, that doesn’t buy into the awkward competition format of current singing shows, where it’s not about finding the best singer, it’s about which judge is going to win over another via the act they are mentoring.
X Factor does it. So does The Voice. The format, the promos, the coaches banter is all about who can beat the other over and above the young unknowns trying to show their skill.
In the days of Australian Idol or indeed any “classic” talent show, things were a lot simpler. Everybody simply wanted the best contestants to proceed to a Final. That’s actually how Guy Sebastian got his career in the first place.
I can’t imagine what might have happened if Marcia Hines had turned to Dicko and said, “If you don’t pick Guy then 100% Mark Holden will pick him and get a Touchdown.”
X Factor 2016 is uncovering some promising emerging talent, again quashing suggestions we have exhausted our talent ranks. It’s having a bit of a challenge cutting through, notably with younger viewers, so it will be looking to its Live shows to pick up the slack from Sunday. Nonsense such as whether a fellow judge will “steal” a singer is all part of the fodder is simply colour and movement to ramp up the drama.
The drama should be adequate in the singer’s performance -and some of it certainly is- and our emotional investment in whether a favourite proceeds to the next stage.
17 Responses
I don’t think the talent pool is exhausted at all, quite the contrary. Every year group at my kids’ high school has one or two kids who are as good as the ones on the talent show. Mulitply that by all the schools in Australia. You see many exceptional singers leading worship groups in churches. And many excellent singers who choose not to make music their career, keeping it as an enjoyable hobby in regional Musical Theatre etc.
What these shows do is take contestants who don’t feel that they can stand out from the (very large) crowd in conventional music avenues, and attempt to make them famous by putting them before eyeballs for eight weeks straight. Unfortunately, even the winners of the shows rarely managed to rise to the top afterwards.
So, yes, focussing on the judges is more likely to gain a following, than the actual contestants.
As Shannon Noll said in a recent interview – these shows are now more about promoting and boosting the judges careers rather than nurturing and supporting new talent. Who goes on which team and who gets through each week is of no interest to the judges or the shows creators itself.
We were thinking the same thing, and actually remarking on how much nicer it is on the Voice US. While there is the judge against judge format, they all seem to work together for the good of the artists. It’s not uncommon to hear a judge say “I didn’t turn because I think you and X are a natural fit” or to get excited when someone “steals” “their” act because it means he or she gets to progress on the show. So I don’t think it’s the judge against judge thing that’s to blame. It’s the narrative 7 wants to construct around it. I imagine Guy and Adam would feel a lot more comfortable if that wasn’t the “script.”
Why they felt they needed to create another boy group this year is beyond me given the groups category was probably the strongest and then inexplicably Iggy feeling she had to justify the whole notion by putting them in her top 3 when they weren’t even close to the level of the the others was completely ridiculous and unjust. I hope they are the first to go and I hope Mel picks at least two of the groups from last night who didn’t make it in Beatz and either IndiElla or the Dennis Sisters.
It’s so forced. No one cares who gets who on these shows.
They’ve lost their way.
Agreed. The need for these twists and manufactured drama is quite sad. I’m still not sold on the three seat challenge concept, it’s just heartbreaking to watch these people get swapped out in front of a large audience.
Seven would be hating (and TEN loving) that, even on its worst night (Sundays), Aus Survivor is beating X Factor in demos. I don’t want to start a demos vs total people argument here, but, from my point of view, doing better in demos surely has to be more meaningful for advertisers as it means greater confidence in reaching the right audience.
(And the point of my comment was in relation to the fact that Seven had supposedly tried to ‘revamp” the X Factor for the younger demos this year)
The problem with this thought is that the younger demos are lost to the internet.
Not all. But there is fragmentation.
X Factor had a later start in Perth last night due to Telethon.
Still given that Aus Survivor was ahead of X-Factor by 50,000 in 16-39 and 80,000 in the 18-49. An earlier slot in Perth is unlikely to change things too much (maybe it is a little closer but that would still be a sizeable gap in the demos)
Can you really say the demos are meaningful. The Block often wins the younger demos. Does anyone really think teenagers are watching The Block. I think the main bulk of The Block viewers would be in the 30 – 39 year old. It would be very interesting to see the demos for the 13-25 year olds.
Well done on this opinion, David. I was thinking the same while watching those bizarre promos. Where has the concept of uncovering talent gone in this game of strategies? Unusual TV.
The Australian version is lacking any of the special sauce that the UK version has anyway. The judges on the Aussie one simply have no cred. They are missing a Simon type as well. And only 3 chairs? It’s very budget at its best.
I agree with your comment but I do have to point out that the reason for 3 judges/mentors/whatever they call them is due to the Mel B’s underdog twist (or as I like to call it, Mel B was unavailable to film the auditions but the show wanted her anyway.