Public voting in singing talent shows?

[Deepak]

I was religiously following a singing talent show here since past month or so (hence absense from B3D), and the winner was decided by public votes (sms/internet)....public votining also lead to more talented participants to be eliminated in previous rounds including the best contestant in the show.

I have heard that same thing happened in American Idol as well, it was also a public voting show and that the best contestant(s) didn't win eventually. Any other show from your country?

Thoughts?

 

[Florin]

I thought the public voting was the whole point of these shows. To generate money by having people televoting/SMSing.

 

[soylent]

"The public" sucks.

 

[epicstruggle]

I was religiously following a singing talent show here since past month or so (hence absense from B3D), and the winner was decided by public votes (sms/internet)....public votining also lead to more talented participants to be eliminated in previous rounds including the best contestant in the show.

Sa Re Ga Ma Pa? I must say me and one of my co-workers were also upset at the outcome.

epic

 

[_xxx_]

I'm sick and tired of such shows here. There are always a bunch of untalented idiots searching for some fast money and doing whatever shite it takes to be mentioned in the newspapers etc. And I really can't take it anymore hearing yet another severed and tortured version of "Genie in a bottle" and "I wanna dance with somebody". Awful. That stuff should be forbidden, here at least.

I hope that the contenders in your country have a bit higher artistic level that the idiots we get to see on german TV...

 

[London Geezer]

Well i was watching American Idol this week and i have to say, there are a few very very very good singers in there. Could count them in one hand i think, but they're definately there, and the best thing is that they're not singing stupid Leann Rymes songs, but old songs not many people heard, even me. Much classier. You still get the bimbo's and the ones singing modern pop songs, but they're obviously not gonna go anywhere near the finals.

 

[Bigus Dickus]

Well i was watching American Idol this week and i have to say, there are a few very very very good singers in there. Could count them in one hand i think, but they're definately there, and the best thing is that they're not singing stupid Leann Rymes songs, but old songs not many people heard, even me. Much classier. You still get the bimbo's and the ones singing modern pop songs, but they're obviously not gonna go anywhere near the finals.

Oh God, I hope you're not talking about the bad Elvis impersonator, the crooner, when you talk about the good ones singing old songs. He's awful. blech.

Back to the main question, I think the whole point of these shows is to find the most popular contestant, not necessarily the most talented. Look as some of the big "pop" stars, like Britney spears as a good example, and you might notice that raw singing talent isn't required. One might argue that the winning contestant would have the best combination of singing talent, stage presence, personality, and looks, but I'm not sure I would even go that far. People often think ignorant thugs should be the most popular so I don't think what people want can be tied to any sense of "better" in the traditional sense.

But, they are nonetheless stars. And that's the whole point of these shows... not to find the next Bobby McFerrin, but rather the next Jessica Simpson. Record labels want people that will earn them money... people that are popular with the audience; not people that have a terrific voice that nobody cares about.

 

[Deepak]

Sa Re Ga Ma Pa? I must say me and one of my co-workers were also upset at the outcome.

epic

Yes, SRGMP. Fanstatic show, with some really wonderful talent. My fav is/was Nihira, what a sweet voice she has (I have all her songs/videos from the show), she will be a big force in plaback singing along with Shreya/Sunidhi in coming years. I also have most of videos and songs from this show. Since last 2 months I have been dilligently following this show. I am not too upset at the outcome, though my choice was Vinit.

**********************
The thing I hate about such shows is that "performance" is given preferance over "actual talent i.e. singing". In Indian Idol 2 (an Indian adaptation of American Idol), one particular judge (she is a movie director, other two are singer/music composer) is always criticising contenders bec'se s/he did dance while singing on stage or s/he wasn't dressed smartly...doesn't matter if s/he sings brilliantly.

 

[Geo]

It's not any different in All Star team sporting events here. But the public pays the freight, so it doesn't seem to me inappropriate that they get to pick --even if they are wrong.

 

[idiom]

It's a bit of a bummer that these types of shows always test a narrow set of qualities in their contestants. If they were looking for real artists, wouldn't it be more appropriate to also somehow test their ability to write songs and the ideas behind their songwriting?

In the Australian Idol, when people pass their first big auditions they're supposed to sing another song and say something about themselves or something like that, I'm not really sure but for a couple of years the judges dug into the contestants saying that they wanted people with real personalities and not just to say the same things everyone else does (eg Oh I've been waiting for this change for so long, I won't let you down etc) but it seems as if the whole format of the show is built to portray only a small aspect of all the contestant's personalities. For instance, all the little clips they do before they go on stage to sing they show the person saying how they love the song or loved the person they worked with and show them doing something stupid/supposedly-funny if it supposed to be a 60's themed show or something. Being cheerful and easy-going isn't the only personality out there :|

The judges might get to know the contestants more and actually see their personalities but the media that's shown to the rest of the country is so controlled, personality seems to get all diffused except for the most surface of qualities (such as John Doe is the country singer guy or the hip hop type guy).

 

[London Geezer]

Oh God, I hope you're not talking about the bad Elvis impersonator, the crooner, when you talk about the good ones singing old songs. He's awful. blech.

Back to the main question, I think the whole point of these shows is to find the most popular contestant, not necessarily the most talented. Look as some of the big "pop" stars, like Britney spears as a good example, and you might notice that raw singing talent isn't required. One might argue that the winning contestant would have the best combination of singing talent, stage presence, personality, and looks, but I'm not sure I would even go that far. People often think ignorant thugs should be the most popular so I don't think what people want can be tied to any sense of "better" in the traditional sense.

But, they are nonetheless stars. And that's the whole point of these shows... not to find the next Bobby McFerrin, but rather the next Jessica Simpson. Record labels want people that will earn them money... people that are popular with the audience; not people that have a terrific voice that nobody cares about.

Oh god no, i really don't know what that fool is still doing there. it's a joke.

I meant Paris, the little squeaky girl, daughter and grand daughter of some big singer, and a couple other girls. Definately not Jessica Simpsons kind of girls.
Also there is a couple of guys, one rocker and another weird one, who are very good.

 

[_xxx_]

I meant Paris, the little squeaky girl, daughter and grand daughter of some big singer, and a couple other girls. Definately not Jessica Simpsons kind of girls.
Also there is a couple of guys, one rocker and another weird one, who are very good.

Just taking part in that shite already disqualifies them as potential artists. That's like a prostitute trying to become a nun. As a (real) musician, I'd rather tear my guts out than even come near anything like these shows.

 

[London Geezer]

Just taking part in that shite already disqualifies them as potential artists. That's like a prostitute trying to become a nun. As a (real) musician, I'd rather tear my guts out than even come near anything like these shows.

Well i always believed that for many artists, that's the best way to get coverage, and they do get a lot of coverage, which is the quickest and best way to become famous somehow. Then again, different markets i guess... they're not dark evil goth rockers who worship the Devil like you are!

 

[_xxx_]

Well i always believed that for many artists, that's the best way to get coverage, and they do get a lot of coverage, which is the quickest and best way to become famous somehow. Then again, different markets i guess... they're not dark evil goth rockers who worship the Devil like you are!

Besides devil worshipping (I'm not religious, as you already know), dark/evil is okay

It's not about different markets, there are many damn good people doing some heavenly beautiful pop music, but none of these comes from any kind of "talent" shows (what an oxymoron ).

 

[Bigus Dickus]

And then on the flipside of your argument you have Clay Aiken, who has the personality of a stapler, the looks of a shih-tzu, but the voice of a true star. He hasn't exactly made it big, but did make it far on the show, which goes to prove two points: sometimes good vocalists do rise to the top, and sometimes people do vote on talent and not the kind of "have it all package" that will likely make someone successful in the industry.

 

[_xxx_]

A good voice on itself is worth nothing if the guy performs run-of-the-mill crap from some stupid "hit-producer" (of Stock-Aitken-Waterman kind) that arises from such shows.

 

[London Geezer]

A good voice on itself is worth nothing if the guy performs run-of-the-mill crap from some stupid "hit-producer" (of Stock-Aitken-Waterman kind) that arises from such shows.

I totally agree, but in the meantime, some of these girls are really showing they're good. And one or two guys too. Shame that when they eventually come out of the competition, they are used by the corporations to just get as much money as they can quickly, without focusing on what the singers most likely want to focus on too, the music. They usually don't have much say in the decision making, which is a bummer.
I think Kelly Clarkson did well, but she's the only one.

 

[Deepak]

Has the contestant you thought was the best, ever won in the end? If not, how far did they make? Bec'se atleast in India it didn't happen mainly bec'se people voted more on looks, regionalism etc than on purely talent.

 

[_xxx_]

Has the contestant you thought was the best, ever won in the end? If not, how far did they make? Bec'se atleast in India it didn't happen mainly bec'se people voted more on looks, regionalism etc than on purely talent.

Add to that that most people can't differ between a good voice and a fart, unfortunately...

 

[Bigus Dickus]

I thought Clay was the best, what, two years ago? And he finished a very close second. But then, I thought both Clay and Ruben had terrific voices and tons of talent, but lacked the appeal that would translate into superstardom.

This year, my guy favorites are Chris, Ace, Elliot (in no particular order), and of course Taylor Hicks (man, I just don't remember feeling as "good" - usually a combination of laughing out loud and crying - as when Taylor sings... something magical about him, and it isn't really his voice...). I think Taylor might have something that will land him a niche success career (R&B, country, or perhaps even the popular rebirth of a somewhat lost genre, folk). I think Chris and Ace have the all around appeal that could make them mainstream stars, and I think Elliot has the voice that could land him a career much like Clay Aitken's.

For the girls, I think Lisa stands out as having true star potential.